honored Kenny’s request [for a raise] and [he] sent a memo to Mr. Struminger regarding an increase in [Carter’s] pay during a rerouting period that they were not prepared to do at which time his pay would have gone up ... [Struminger] indicated that that was not our pay structure and that he couldn’t make modifications to our pay structure for an individual. (Id., Gwaltney Dep. at 182-83.) Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that VLS’s inability to recalculate the routes he supervised was tied to his resistance to Miller’s firing of Tawwaab. Carter is unable to point to any situation where an individual who did not engage in protected activity received an increase in pay due to a route recalculation. See, e.g., Obi v. Anne Arundel County, Md., 28 Fed.Appx. 333, 336 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). As such, Plaintiff has failed to put forth
holding that a plaintiff failed to rebut the defendants proffered reason for increasing employees level of pay by failing to show that plaintiffs treatment was disproportionate with individuals who did not engage in protected activity holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity holding in the title vii context that the plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him know of the employees plaintiffs protected activity holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity holding that plaintiff state employees contract right to be discharged only for cause was not protected by due process clause because it did not rise to level of fundamental right