violation of Title VII, such as employer discrimination. See Antonio v. Sygma Network, Inc., 458 F.3d 1177, 1181 (10th Cir.2006). An employee’s “[protected opposition can range from filing formal charges to voicing informal complaints to superiors.” Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc., 370 F.3d 1014, 1015 (10th Cir.2004). To demonstrate protected opposition to discrimination, the employee must show “he had a reasonable good-faith belief that the opposed behavior was discriminatory.” Id. at 1016; see Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. E.E.O.C., 405 F.3d 840, 852 (10th Cir.2005). This standard has subjective and objective components. Little v. United Tech., Carrier Transicold Div., 103 F.3d 956, 960 (11th Cir.1997); see also Crumpacker v. Kan. Dep’t of Human Res., 338 F.3d 1163, 1171 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). “A plaintiff must not only show that he
holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination recognizing that title vii protects individuals from retaliation regardless of the merit of their complaints so long as they can show a good faith reasonable belief that the challenged practices violate title vii holding that a plaintiff cannot maintain a retaliation claim based on an unreasonable subjective goodfaith belief that the opposed conduct violated title vii emphasis added holding that allegations of employer retaliation are properly governed by title vii and cannot support a claim under  1983