back (id-at 141:20-144:19). Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could not find in Tillman’s favor for two reasons: first, he has not linked any hostility to his race, and second, any remaining allegations are simply not severe or pervasive enough to support a finding that Luray featured an objectively hostile or abusive work environment. As a' preliminary matter, Tillman has proffered no direct evidence of Luray discriminating against him on the basis of race. Nor has Tillman provided any evidence that the facially neutral incidents he cites were in fact rélated to his race. Indéed, Tillman admits that he never overheard any racial ly disparaging comments being made at Luray. (Id. at 158:23-159:3.) Instead, he attempts to tie the hostility he perceived on the part 2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court grants Luray’s motion
holding that plaintiffs subjective perception notwithstanding alleged prohibited statements objectively fell short of the requisite levels of severity or pervasiveness required by title vii holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original holding that an arbitration clause was unenforceable because it prohibited an award of punitive damages which was available to the plaintiff under title vii holding the employees complaints must give adequate notice to the employer that the employee is complaining of conduct prohibited by title vii