the Title VII’s language and overall purpose, the court held that the participation clause extends to an employee who is named as a voluntary witness in a Title VII suit, but who never is called to testify. Id. at 175; Hendershot v. Home Depot, Inc., 2009 WL 367543, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 13, 2009) (denying summary judgment and finding that plaintiffs actions fell under the participation clause of the anti-retaliation provision when plaintiff stated that he would “tell the truth” in an EEOC hearing); Weston v. Optima Communications Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3200653, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2009) (finding that employee engaged in protected activity when she stated that she would “tell the truth” in her co-worker’s lawsuit); Tucker v. Journal Register East, 520 F.Supp.2d 374, 382-84 (D.Conn.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Dubaz v. Johnson Control World
holding that an employer must remedy situation of sexual harassment holding that plaintiffs evidence showing that defendant refused to allow her to work as flight attendant because of her weight failed to demonstrate that defendant perceived her as substantially limited in any major life activity holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that plaintiffs conduct was sufficient to qualify as a protected activity when she refused to testify as a favorable witness for her employer in a sexual harassment claim holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity