retaliation claim because a plaintiff need not establish that the conduct she opposed was actually a violation of the statute so long as she can establish that she possessed a “ ‘good faith, reasonable belief that the underlying challenged actions of the employer violated that law.’ ” Quinn, supra, at 769 (quoting Manoharan v. Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d Cir.1988)). The first element of Plaintiffs retaliation claims is therefore established. As to the second element, the fact that Defendants County and the Home were also named as defendants in Noni I, an action in which Defendants’ appeared and defended, establishes Defendants’ awareness of Plaintiffs participation in activity within Title VII’s protection. See Jute, supra, at 175-76 (<HOLDING>). See also Collette v. St. Luke’s Roosevelt
holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii holding in the title vii context that the plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him know of the employees plaintiffs protected activity holding in context of title vii race discrimination claim that threatening a coworker with bodily harm was nondiscriminatory reason for suspension holding defendant employer knew plaintiff had engaged in activity protected under title vii where plaintiff was identified as a potential witness by a coworker plaintiff in a deposition given in a prior title yii employment discrimination action brought by the coworker against the employer