to Plaintiff to determine whether there is evidence that Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the opposition clause of the PHRA. 1. Opposition Clause The opposition clause makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any employee “because [he] ... opposed any practice forbidden by this act.” 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 955(d). While the record reflects that Plaintiff opposed Defendant Wynn’s use of derogatory language by complaining to Defendant Sea-right and others, see supra Part I.A.2, the anti-retaliation provision does not prohibit retaliation for speaking out against prejudice that has no nexus to employment discrimination and the unequal treatment of employees on the basis of their race. See e.g., Wimmer v. Suffolk County Police Dept. 176 F.3d 125 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Denham v. Saks, 2008 WL 2952308, 104 Fair
holding police department employees opposition to discrimination by police officers against black citizens did not constitute protected activity under title vii holding that the plaintiffs reports of his fellow police officers discriminatory treatment of minority citizens was not protected activity under title vii holding that title vii claims of disparate treatment based on discriminatory overtime survive summary judgment holding that a police officers deposition in a fellow officers  1983 action alleging unlawful retaliation was protected speech holding that title vii does not provide for a damages claim against supervisors or fellow employees