Luray’s employees to an unspoken racial animus permeating the entire company. However, even if Tillman had adduced some evidence that his treatment was based on his race, his allegations are simply not objectively substantial enough to classify Luray as a hostile work environment. It bears repeating that Title VII “does not set forth a general civility code for the American workplace.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although Tillman has adduced evidence demonstrating unpleasant work conditions at Luray, he falls short of showing that such conditions, and his resultant treatment, were objectively substantial enough to constitute a hostile work environment. See, e.g. Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367 (<HOLDING>); McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., 609 F.3d 70
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 a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding it reasonable for employee to believe that title vii protected her from sexually offensive remarks made by nonemployee who was conducting mandatory training session holding that evidentiary void as to motive for making and details of offensive comments doomed title vii claim holding that the mere utterance of an  epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee is insufficient to implicate title vii