MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CARLOS MURGUIA, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant’s summary judgment motion (Doc. 45). Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s race and age disparate treatment claims and plaintiff’s retaliation claim because plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case. For the following reasons, the court dismisses plaintiff’s age-based claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denies as moot those portions of defendant’s motion, and grants the rest of defendant’s motion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an African-American male with a master’s degree. Defendant, a Kansas community college, hired plaintiff in 2002 as an adjunct instructor. In 2008, plaintiff sued defendant in federal court alleging various discrimination claims. The parties executed a settlement agreement and release of claims in July 2009.
Under the 2009 settlement agreement, defendant agreed to employ plaintiff as a Resource Center Developmental Math Facilitator (“RCDMF”), effective with the fall 2009 academic year. The RCDMF position is a full-time staff position. Plaintiff’s job responsibilities include administering placement tests, preparing students for the math Work Keys Certificate, and assisting with CASA and Accuplacer testing.
Plaintiff transferred to the RCDMF position in August 2009 and was placed on probation. He remained on probation until at least February 10, 2010. Since his transfer, the following events occurred:
(1) Plaintiff’s name was misspelled and his title was incorrectly identified in college listings.
(2) Plaintiff’s name was not included in defendant’s General Catalog 2009-2011.
(3) Plaintiff did not receive books he requested. He requested certain books in the fall of 2009. He did receive some books around that time, but not the books he requested. He asked for the books again in January 2010 and June 2010. He received some of the books later that summer.
(4) Plaintiff, despite his offers to assist, was not invited to participate in or help organize orientation activities.
(5) Plaintiff was not invited to attend Computer Assisted Design (“CAD”) training and was not included on some correspondence regarding Accuplacer and Work Keys.
(6) Plaintiff received written instructions for administering the Work Keys test. Plaintiff did not receive additional training on administering the Work Keys test. Carly Eastling provided additional training to other employees.
(7) Plaintiff received a November 11, 2009 performance evaluation that had a total score of 89 and an honesty ranking of 5 (far exceeds requirements). One week later he received another performance evaluation that had the same total score ...