working environment. For the following reasons, the Court finds that the evidence is insufficient to support a reasonable determination in favor of plaintiffs claim. A hostile work environment, in violation of Title VII, is established by a plaintiff showing that his workplace was “permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult ... that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” How-ley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141, 153 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993), abrogated on other grounds by, Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 753, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998)); see , 318 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. County of Westchester, 171 F.3d
holding that defendants affirmative acts of driving minor to robbery helping minor enter the building and serving as a lookout for the minor warranted sentencing enhancement holding that isolated minor acts or occasional episodes do not warrant relief holding that isolated criminal acts by unknown assailants resulting in theft of personal property and minor injury were not sufficiently severe to constitute persecution holding that gardenvariety errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas relief holding that isolated criminal attacks do not constitute persecution