MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., District Judge.

Kallaad W. Cepada sued the Board of Education of Baltimore County (the "Board") for retaliation and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII")1 and § 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ("§ 1981").2 ECF No. 18 at 7-14. Pending is the Board's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 56. No hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md.2011).' For the following reasons, the Board's motion for summary judgment will be granted.

I. Background3

In 1996, the Board hired Cepada, an African-American male, as a classroom teacher in technical education. ECF Nos. 56-1 at 1, 65-2 at 2. In 1999, Cepada was assigned to Woodlawn High School ("Woodlawn"), where he taught full-time during the day and also taught night school. See ECF Nos. 18 at 4, 56-1 at 6, 20. Cepada performed satisfactorily as a teacher4 and part-time disciplinarian5 and generally, but not uniformly, had good relations with the Woodlawn students6 and teachers.7

Cepada did not, however, have a good relationship with the Woodlawn administration. In the 2007-2008 school year, Edward Donald Weglein, a white male, was principal of Woodlawn. ECF No. 65-16 at 2, 4. James Sargent, an African-American male, ECF No. 65-18 at 2, Starr Dimpfel, a white female, ECF No. 65-15 at 48, and Dwayne Williams, DR197, were three assistant principals. Kenneth Miller, a white male, was also an assistant principal and scheduled teachers for classes. ECF No. 65-15 at 34, 48. Manuel Rodriguez, a Hispanic male, served as the area superintendent. ECF Nos. 65-12 at 40, 65-15 at 48. Cepada asserts that, before the 2007-2008 school year, Dimpfel and Weglein offered him a Dean of Students administrator position with a reduced teaching schedule to induce him to stay at Woodlawn8 and use his skills at managing students in the halls. ECF No. 65-15 at 13-19, 32. Dimpfel and Weglein deny that they ever offered Cepada this position.9 When Cepada returned to Woodlawn at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, he did not receive the Dean of Students position, and he was asked to teach Science — a course for which he was not certified.10 See ECF No. 65-15 at 34.

During the 2007-2008 school year, Cepada had several disagreements with the Woodlawn administration. First, Cepada sent numerous emails to the Woodlawn administrators, teachers, and parents. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 56-1 at 11, 65-11 at 37; DR114. These emails express Cepada's frustration with Woodlawn's administration,11 and demand various changes to improve the school.12 See, e.g., ECF Nos. 65-11 at 2-3, 7-9. Some of the emails also suggested that members of the administration, particularly Dimpfel13 and Weglein,14 are racist. Dimpfel and Miller stated that they felt offended and harassed by Cepada's accusations.15 DR153. In addition, Cepada was reprimanded for violating the Board's policy on email use in the work-place. ECF No. 65-13 at 30. Cepada alleges that no other teachers have been reprimanded for sending emails unrelated to school business. ECF No. 64-2 at 15.

Cepada disagreed with the administration about what he considered their lax discipline of students.16 In particular, he accuses Sargent of displaying favoritism toward children who Sargent knew from working at the nearby middle school. See, e.g., ECF No. 65-12 at 36. He also alleges that the administration changed the punishments he imposed for student misbehavior, or chose not to impose any punishment, which undermined his authority and damaged his reputation. See Cepada Dep. at 141. He alleges that the administration treated the students that he disciplined, or recommended for discipline, differently because of his race. Cepada Dep. at 138.

Cepada emphasizes two incidents of allegedly inappropriate discipline. First, Cepada had a female student who he alleges threatened three times to kill him and told him she would bring a weapon to assault him. See ECF No. 65-12 at 4-5. Cepada asserts that she was not removed from his class despite his many-requests.17 ECF No. 64-2 at 13. Second, Cepada had another female student whose removal he requested; the student had never caused a problem, but her mother had insinuated that Cepada had an inappropriate relationship with her daughter. ECF No. 65-12 at 40-2, 45. Cepada believed the student had a tendency to lie, and he feared that she would fabricate a story which could end his career. Id.; ECF No. 65-13 at 15. The administration refused to remove her from his class, ostensibly because neither the student, nor her mother, wanted her removed; the mother asserted that she had not meant to imply an inappropriate relationship with Cepada, and her daughter needed the class to graduate.18 ECF Nos. 65-12 at 40-41, 65-13 at 11, 65-14 at 57. He asserts that having the student in his class caused him to suffer migraine headaches and other stress-related ailments. Cepada Dep. at 138-40. Cepada alleges that the requests of white teachers to remove students, particularly students who raised safety concerns, were routinely honored.19 ECF No. 64-2 at 13.

Cepada repeatedly emailed Rodriguez, and other administrators, to complain about these incidents, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 65-11 at 26, 65-12 at 49, and the Woodlawn administration's disparate treatment of him and other teachers.20 See, e.g., ECF No. 65-11. Cepada asserts that his requests for meetings and action to address his complaints were largely-ignored. See ECF Nos. 65-12 at 49, 65-13 at 3. Cepada also repeatedly emailed county and Board officials. See, e.g., ECF No. 65-11 at 29-30.21 On March 6, 2008, following his reprimand for violating the Board's email policy, Cepada filed a discrimination charge with the Board's EEO office.22 ECF No. 65-1.

On March 14, 2008, two students accused Cepada of assaulting them. ECF No. 65-12 at 2. Surveillance camera footage quickly revealed that the students had lied. See id. Cepada alleges that Rodriguez told him that the students' parent called a state agency, and Cepada had to be placed on administrative leave pending an investigation, even though he had not done anything wrong. ECF No. 65-15 at 39-40. Rodriguez did not remember that statement. ECF No. 65-12 at 5. Cepada's paid administrative leave began on March 14, 2008, ECF No. 65-15 at 41; he returned to Woodlawn a short time later. Cepada Dep. at 108. During his suspension, however, Cepada says he was told not to attend a PTA meeting and lost income from teaching night school. Cepada Dep. at 108; ECF No. 64-2 at 15. After the suspension, Cepada alleges that he called the students' mother, and she told him she had never complained to the school or an outside agency about Cepada. Cepada Dep. at 99. Cepada suspected that he had been "set up" by the administration, see Cepada Dep. at 95-99, and he asserts that "[n]o other teacher [has] been treated in this manner for any similar incidents," ECF No. 64-2 at 15.

On April 4, 2008, Cepada learned that a student was contemplating suicide. Cepada Dep. at 101; DR194. Cepada went to find an administrator to whom he could disclose the information. Cepada Dep. at 101. He saw Sargent speaking to Robert Holland — an African-American male band director — in the lobby. See DR193. Cepada interrupted their conversation; Sargent told Cepada he would speak to him later, but Cepada insisted that they speak immediately. Id. Sargent and Cepada then began to yell at each other.23 Their argument continued outside, and was witnessed by several students and teachers. DR369-70. On April 7, 2008, following this argument, Cepada was again placed on paid administrative leave. ECF Nos. 65-13 at 2, 70 at 10. Sargent was not disciplined. ECF No. 65-12 at 2. Cepada's union representative spoke to Board officials. See ECF No. 65-9. The representative learned that they thought it was in the "best interest" of the students, administrators, and Cepada for him to stay "on administrative leave pending the outcome of the [EEO] investigation."24 Id. Cepada did not return to Woodlawn and was transferred to another school for the 2008-2009 school year.25 ECF No. 65-15 at 8, 51.

On May 20, 2008, Cepada filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations ("MCHR"), alleging race, sex, and age discrimination and retaliation. ECF No. 65-2 at 2-3. On May 23, 2008, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued a Notice of Charge of Discrimination to the Board. ECF No. 7-4. On November 30, 2009, the EEOC issued Cepada a right-to-sue notice. ECF No. 7-5.

On March 4, 2010, Cepada sued the Board for race, sex, and age discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, § 1981, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").26 ECF No. 1. On September 27, 2010, 2010 WL 3824221, Cepada's complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to: (1) establish that he had sued under Title VII and the ADEA within 90 days of receiving the right-to-sue notice; and (2) state a claim under § 1981. ECF No. 16. He was granted leave to amend all counts. Id. at 14. On October 23, 2010, Cepada filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 18. On November 12, 2010, the Board moved to dismiss. ECF No. 21. On December 13, 2010, Cepada opposed that motion. ECF No. 26. On January 13, 2011, the Board filed its reply. ECF No. 29. The Court dismissed Cepada's claims of disparate treatment and failure to promote under Title VII and § 1981, and various violations of the ADEA, for failure to state a claim. ECF Nos. 31, 30 at 13-14, 19-21.

The Board filed an interlocutory appeal to the Court's order to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. ECF No. 32. On March 15, 2012, the Board withdrew its appeal. ECF No. 41. On February 8, 2013, the Board moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 56. On April 8, 2013, Cepada responded in opposition. ECF No. 64. On May 23, 2013, the Board filed its reply. ECF No. 70.

II. Motion for Summary Judgment

A. Standard of Review

The Court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).27 In considering the motion, the judge's function is "not ... to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

The Court must "view the evidence in the light most favorable to ... the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor," Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th Cir.2002), but the Court must abide by the "affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial," Bouchat v. Bait. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 526 (4th Cir.2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

B. Hostile Work Environment

Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of race or sex. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Section 1981 guarantees that all citizens shall have the same right to "make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by [Caucasian] citizens." 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A plaintiff may plead a hostile work environment claim under these statutes. See, e.g., Williams v. Giant Food, Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n. 5 (4th Cir.2004); Connor v. Giant Food Inc., 187 F.Supp.2d 494, 496 (D.Md.2002).

To survive an employer's motion for summary judgment on his hostile work environment claims, the plaintiff must show that the offending conduct was: (1) unwelcome;28 (2) based on race or sex; (3) subjectively and objectively severe or pervasive enough to alter the plaintiffs conditions of employment and create an abusive atmosphere; and (4) imputable to the employer. Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 183-84 (4th Cir.2001) (citing Causey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 801 (4th Cir.1998)). The elements are the same under Title VII or § 1981. Id. at 184.

Cepada contends that several Woodlawn administrators' actions contributed to a hostile work environment. First, he alleges that his requests to remove disruptive students from his classroom were routinely ignored, although similar requests by his white peers were honored. See ECF No. 64-2 at 13. Second, he alleges that his white peers, "both male and female, were assigned more favorable teaching schedules compared to their African-American counterparts."29 Id. at 14. Third, he contends that Weglein "[made] numerous derogatory comments based on race concerning African-American staff, which [the] Plaintiff perceived as offensive." Id. He also alleges that he was: (1) "promised a promotion to Dean of Students, along with a reduced teaching[] schedule, if he returned to Woodlawn for the 2007-2008 year;" (2) "assigned an additional class, Science, for which he was not certified to teach;" (3) yelled at by Dimpfel; (4) disciplined unfairly when he was accused of assaulting students; (5) reprimanded for violating the school's email policy; (6) disciplined after the altercation with Sargent even though Sargent was not; and (7) prevented from attending a PTA meeting. See id. at 13-16. Finally, he asserts that his numerous complaints about the disparate treatment were ignored and he was criticized after he "contacted his State Delegate" to complain. Id. at 14, 16. The Board contends that Cepada's claims "fall far short of the acceptable level required to establish a hostile work environment claim." ECF No. 56-1 at 15.

1. Hostile Work Environment Based on Sex

Beyond the allegations in his complaint30 and a single conclusionary statement in his response,31 Cepada has made no allegations that relate any of the actions described above to Cepada's sex. See ECF No. 64-2. He has offered no evidence that any employee of the Board discriminated against him because he is male. In the absence of such evidence, the Court will grant the Board summary judgment on Cepada's hostile work environment claim on the basis of sex. See Spriggs, 242 F.3d at 183-84; Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 526.

2. Hostile Work Environment

Based on Race

To establish this claim, the plaintiff must show that "but for" his race, he "would not have been the victim of the alleged discrimination." See Gilliam v. S.C. Dep't of Juvenile Justice, 474 F.3d 134, 142 (4th Cir.2007). The plaintiff must provide "legally sufficient evidence" of race discrimination in order to "transform an ordinary [workplace] conflict ... into an actionable claim of discrimination." Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 281-82 (4th Cir.2000) ("Even if [defendant] harbored some personal dislike of [plaintiff] that made [plaintiff's] job more difficult or stressful, an employer is not required to like his employees.") (internal citations and quotations omitted). Absent direct evidence of racial animosity, the plaintiff may rely on evidence of differential treatment of similarly situated white employees. See Gilliam, 474 F.3d at 142. To be sufficient, the evidence must consist of more than speculation, circumstantial evidence, and "conclusory" or "general" statements — the plaintiff's evidence must prove a "direct or inferential connection between the plaintiff's allegations and her race" supported by specific evidence.32 General allegations of differential treatment must be substantiated by "accounts of specific dates, times or circumstances."33

Cepada has offered no evidence, beyond his speculations, that any of the actions he claims contributed to a hostile work environment were motivated by racial animus. See Sonpon v. Grafton Sch., Inc., 181 F.Supp.2d 494, 503 (D.Md.2002) ("Plaintiff's mere speculation that [defendant] was motivated by racial animus in giving her a written rather than verbal reprimand is not evidence."). He alleges that he was not promoted to Dean of Students, and forced to teach Science, ECF No. 64-2 at 13-14, but he has offered no evidence that these personnel decisions were based on race — thus, these incidents cannot support an actionable claim of discrimination.34 Similarly, he alleges that because of his race he was unfairly reprimanded for violating the Board's email policy, see ECF No. 64-2 at 15, but he provides no evidence to support this claim,35 nor any of his other claims that he was unfairly disciplined by the administration because of his race,36 see id. at 14-16. Even if "no other teacher" was disciplined for similar conduct, see id. at 15, disparate treatment that is not based on Cepada's race does not create a legally cognizable hostile work environment claim.37 See Hawkins, 203 F.3d at 280-82 (denying plaintiffs hostile work environment claim, because plaintiff never showed that her supervisor's "low regard" for her in comparison to her white peers, and resulting uneven treatment, "was due to race").

Cepada also alleges that Weglein made "numerous derogatory comments based on race concerning African-American staff." ECF No. 64-2 at 14. His complaint alleges that Weglein said "`this is not soul train' ... when addressing African-American staff or students." ECF No. 18 at 5. None of the evidence provided by the parties refers to this remark, or any other racial comment, made by any Board employee.38 The only race-based comments referred to in the parties' evidence are those made by Cepada, see, e.g., ECF No. 65-12 at 54, and the evidence is that many Woodlawn administrators found Cepada's comments derogatory and offensive toward them, rather than the other way around. See, e.g., supra note 15. Accordingly, Cepada's claim based on racial comments fails.

With respect to his allegations of differential treatment based on race, Cepada has not substantiated his claims with dates, times, or circumstances. See Carter, 33 F.3d at 461-62. Cepada has not provided any evidence of instances in which a white teacher's discipline of a student was upheld, while Cepada's discipline of a student was not.39 Although Cepada complains in several emails that administrators would have dealt more severely with student misconduct if they had personally experienced it, see ECF No. 615-13 at 21, Title VII does not protect against discrimination on the basis of whether the plaintiff is a teacher or part of the administration,40 nor does it demand that a school administration impose any particular discipline on misbehaving students.41 Similarly, Cepada has not substantiated his claims with specific accounts of times when white teachers' requests to remove students were honored, and his similar requests were ignored.42 Although Cepada alleges that two of his removal requests were unfairly ignored, see ECF No. 64-2 at 13, there is no evidence that either of these decisions were based on Cepada's race.43 Finally, Cepada has attempted to support his claims of differential treatment in scheduling teachers by identifying times of the day when he saw large groups of white teachers congregating socially. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 65-12 at 39. Even if Cepada's observations substantiated his claims of differential treatment, Cepada has not shown that he received a less favorable teaching schedule than his white peers.44 Cepada cannot base a claim of hostile work environment based on discrimination that others suffered.45 See Honor v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 383 F.3d 180, 190-91 (4th Cir.2004) ("[A]n individual plaintiff in a private, non-class action alleging employment discrimination is not litigating' common questions of fact, but the discrete question of whether the employer discriminated against the plaintiff in a specific instance." (quoting Lowery v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 158 F.3d 742, 761 (4th Cir. 1998))). Accordingly, Cepada has failed to show that he was treated differently from his similarly situated white peers on the basis of race.

Finally, Cepada alleges that his numerous complaints about the disparate treatment he received were ignored. See ECF No. 64-2 at 14. However, his evidence does not show that his requests were ignored because of his race. There is evidence that many of Cepada's complaints were acknowledged through emails and meetings. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 65-12 at 7, 65-14 at 45. That the administration did not react to Cepada's complaints in the exact manner he wanted,46 or agree to all his numerous requests for meetings,47 does not alone establish discrimination against him on the basis of his race.48 Thus, the Court will grant the Board summary judgment on Cepada's hostile work environment claim. See Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 526 (function of trial judge on summary judgment is to "prevent factually unsupported claims ... from proceeding to trial").

C. Retaliation

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to "discriminate against any of [its] employees ... because [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII], or because [the employee] has made a charge... or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing" under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

To survive an employer's motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must show direct evidence of discrimination, or establish a prima facie case that raises an inference of illegal conduct.49 The burden-shifting approach of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) applies to Title VII retaliation claims.50 First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation. See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 432 (4th Cir.2006). The burden then shifts to the employer to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. See id. The plaintiff must then demonstrate that the employer's reason was mere pretext for retaliation by showing "both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason for the challenged conduct." Jiminez v. Mary Wash. Coll., 57 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To establish a prima facie retaliation claim under Title VII or § 1981, the plaintiff must show: (1) protected activity; (2) "materially" adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and materially adverse action. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006); Bryant v. Aiken Reg'l Med. Ctrs. Inc., 333 F.3d 536, 543 (4th Cir.2003). An employee engages in protected activity if he opposes an "unlawful employment practice" like discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), -3(a). Protected activity under § 1981 includes opposing "policies or practices that discriminated against any person on the basis of race." Proa v. NRT Mid Atl, Inc., 618 F.Supp.2d 447, 471-72 (D.Md.2009). A "materially" adverse action is one that "well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or' supporting a charge of discrimination." Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405; see also Harman v. Unisys Corp., 356 Fed. Appx. 638, 641 (4th Cir.2009). Because employees are protected "not from all retaliation, but from retaliation that produces an injury or harm," materially adverse actions do not include "trivial" harms. See Burlington, 548 U.S. at 67-69, 72-73, 126 S.Ct. 2405. If the employer takes the action "shortly after" learning about the protected activity, courts may infer a causal connection between the two. Price v. Thompson, 380 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir.2004).

Cepada alleges that the Board discriminated against him, because of his complaints to Rodriguez, and because he filed an internal EEO complaint. ECF No. 64-2 at 17. In retaliation for his complaints, Cepada alleges these materially adverse actions: (1) he was placed on administrative leave twice which resulted in lost income from night school and exclusion from a PTA meeting; (2) he was yelled at by Dimpfel;51 (3) he was denied the Dean of Students position and forced to teach Science;52 and (4) he was transferred from Woodlawn to another school.53 ECF No. 64-2 at 14, 17, 21, 24.54 The Board disputes Cepada's claims, and also asserts that any adverse actions it took were "[l]egitimate and [n]on-retaliatory." ECF Nos. 56-1 at 18-22, 70 at 10-12

Cepada has established a prima facie case of discrimination. He engaged in protected activity — filing an EEO complaint and complaining to his supervisors of disparate treatment55 — and the Woodlawn administration knew about this activity.56 See Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 218 (4th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff must show defendant knew of plaintiffs protected activity to establish causal connection). He suffered materially adverse employment action — administrative leave resulting in loss of night school pay and exclusion from a PTA meeting57 — that occurred "shortly after" his protected activity.58 However, Cepada has not rebutted the Board's "legitimate, nondiscriminatory" reasons for Cepada's two placements on administrative leave. See Laber, 438 F.3d at 432. The Board contends that he was placed on the first administrative leave, "in direct response to a pending investigation into claims that [Cepada] assaulted two students." ECF No. 70 at 11. Cepada acknowledges that this accusation was made, and an investigation occurred. ECF No. 64-2 at 14-15. Also, as discussed above, Cepada has not shown that the administration had a discriminatory motive for putting him on administrative leave following these accusations. See supra note 36. The Board contends that he was placed on the second administrative leave, as a "direct response to [Cepada's admitted altercation with [an African-American] supervisor ... Sargent." ECF No. 70 at 12. Cepada acknowledges that this argument occurred, and he acted inappropriately. See ECF No. 65-12 at 2. As discussed above, Cepada has not shown that the discipline he received was motivated by discrimination. See supra note 36. Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment to the Board on Cepada's retaliation claim.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the defendant's motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED.