VII].” Hinds v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 523 F.3d 1187, 1203 (10th Cir. 2008). The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Lucas is that he complained to Thompson of unfair treatment and threatened to complain to the EEOC about a hostile work environment, but nothing suggests that he complained to Thompson or to any other defendant that he was being discriminated against because of his race or gender. “A vague reference to discrimination and harassment without any indication that this misconduct was motivated by [race, gender, or other category protected by Title VII] does not constitute protected activity and will not support a retaliation claim.” Id. at 1203 n.13 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Petersen v. Utah Dep’t of Corrs., 301 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). We agree that Lucas failed to establish a
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 employer alone is liable for a violation of title vii by supervisory employees holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding individual employees may be liable 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