(4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir. 2000). Protected activity “covers conduct such as ‘complaining to anyone (management, unions, other employees, or newspapers) about allegedly unlawful practices ....”’ Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 529 F.3d 714, 721 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati 215 F.3d 561, 578 (6th Cir.2000)); see also Fox v. Eagle Distrib. Co., Inc., 510 F.3d 587, 591-92 (6th Cir.2007) (requiring the substance of the complaint to management be that an employee was “discriminated against on the basis of his [protected status]”) (interpreting ADEA), Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., Inc., 879 F.2d 1304, 1313 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiff also must show that the
holding that the plaintiffs letter to the human resources department complaining of unfair treatment in general and not specifically complaining about age discrimination did not constitute protected activity holding the employees complaints must give adequate notice to the employer that the employee is complaining of conduct prohibited by title vii 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 an employee must do more than make a vague charge of discrimination and that an employee who sent a letter complaining that charges against him were the product of ethnocentrism did not engage in protected activity under title vii holding that title vii precludes a claim under section 1981 for racial discrimination against a federal employee