conditions at these two delivery locations. This condition was made unlawful by OSHA, a statute that protects the safety of all workers, whether disabled or not. His sole complaint likewise arose under the separate reporting scheme for violations provided in OSHA, which contains its own retaliation provisions that he did not apparently pursue. Marks, moreover, never connected these safety reports to his disability. He, in fact, made the OSHA complaint about Wonderland in the name of his apparently non-disabled driver, Cromer. See Marks Dep. 3 at 236:14-240:17 (describing complaint in general safety terms similar to others he had made), 264:7-16, 273:7-19 (explaining OSHA complaint was made in Cromer’s name); Mot., Exh. 36 (Email from Nancy Ball on Aug. 30, x. 399, 401 (5th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Superior Contract Cleaners, 2011 WL
holding that an attorneys letters constitute protected conduct under title vii holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that the exception does not apply to osha inspection cases holding report to authorities for violating osha does not qualify as 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