by Title IX, as someone who was a potential witness to the assault on Jane Doe IV and the retaliation against Mr, Bowles. To support this argument, the plaintiffs cite T.L. v. Sherwood, 68 F.Supp.3d 1295, 1314-15 (D.Or.2014), which in turn cites to Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 131 S.Ct. 863, 178 L.Ed,2d 694 (2011) and Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843 (9th Cir.2014). As explained in Sherwood, however, these cases only permit zone-of-interest recovery for plaintiffs who are close enough to the person who engaged in the protected activity that the court could find that the protected activity was the plaintiff’s own or that the retaliation against the plaintiff was intended to actually harm that person. See Sherwood, 68 F.Supp.3d at 1314-1315 (<HOLDING>). The court finds that the zone-of-interest
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 holding that student plaintiffs could bring retaliation claims where they were allegedly retaliated against for complaints made by their parents on their behalf and noting that ollier allowed the same and that thompson allowed a retaliation claim by a plaintiff who was fired because his fiancee who was also his coworker engaged in protected activity and firing him was intended to harp her holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity holding that an employee who was terminated after his fiancee filed a charge of discrimination had standing to sue employer for retaliation where his fiancee was employed by the same company