1999 incidents, present a closer question with respect to the first prong of Andreios. Each of the remarks made on these days is seemingly neutral; that is, Thomas did not refer explicitly to Plaintiffs Lebanese origin. Nevertheless, even words that appear facially neutral may meet the first prong of the Andrews test if it can otherwise be shown that they were motivated by discriminatory animus. See, e.g., Howley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.2000) (finding hostile work environment claim survived where conduct at issue, though lacking any sexual component or reference to the plaintiffs sex, could, under the circumstances of the case, reasonably-be interpreted as having-been motivated by plaintiffs sex); Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1083 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). We believe that, as opposed to the June 3 and
holding that there is no reason why the words in one section in a code should have any different meaning ascribed to them than nearly identical words appearing in other sections of the same code id at 288 holding that a jury could find an intent to discriminate from evidence of use of code words such as all of you and one of them the words themselves are only relevant for what they reveal  the intent of the speaker holding that sufficient revocatory intent was present where the words annulled and void were written in testators handwriting with intent of revoking the entire will being shown at time of writing such words recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims holding legislatures intent is determined from plain and common meaning of words used