hostility is evinced by her own allegations that Gagnon treated her differently than her white co-workers. However, she has offered no specific proof of exactly who was treated differently and how. Indeed, the undisputed facts indicate that another Chinese FSR, Nancy Shaw, benefited from the alleged mistreatment of Wang. As Judge Motz of this Court recognized, “vague claims of differing treatment” by the plaintiff are insufficient to demonstrate disparate treatment. See Jackson, 171 F.Supp.2d at 541 (citing Causey, 162 F.3d at 801 (recognizing that the plaintiffs con-clusory statements of differential treatment of similarly situated employees, without specific evidentiary support, cannot support an actionable claim for harassment); Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 461-62 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>)). Wang has failed to show Gagnon’s actions
holding that general allegation that a supervisor reprimanded africanamerican plaintiff publicly but spoke with his white coworkers in private does not establish an actionable claim of harassment without substantiation by accounts of specific dates times or circumstances holding that a white male is not in a protected class for purposes of his discrimination claim because a white male is not  a member of an historically favored group  holding that the plaintiff must establish that a supervisors harassment was within the scope of his employment and that the employer failed to respond adequately and effectively when it learned of the harassment holding that where the employer fired the plaintiff upon a good faith belief that he sexually harassed coworkers the plaintiff could not prove pretext by challenging the harassment allegations holding that supervisors questions made two and three times a week about plaintiffs sexual activities constituted actionable sexual harassment