not prohibit retaliation against employees who do not allege unlawful discrimination”); see also Mixon v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Sch., 3:ll-CV-228-MOC-DSC, 2011 WL 5075808, at *6, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124291, at *17 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 2011)(“Title VII requires that employees provide some kind of notice to their employer that they are complaining about prohibited practices covered by the statute. Generalized complaints about disputes or annoyances in the workplace are insufficient”); Gray, 2011 WL 1831780, at *6-7, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51155, at *21 (finding no protected activity where the plaintiffs emails to management did not mention racial discrimination, harassment, or retaliation); Richardson v. Richland Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. One, 52 Fed.Appx. 615, 617 (4th Cir.2002) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). In this case, neither of Plaintiffs
holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired holding that a plaintiff could not proceed on her procedural due process claim brought under  1983 because she did not show that she had exhausted her state law remedies or alleged that those remedies were inadequate holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination