working environment.” See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367. A reasonable jury could certainly conclude that asking an African-American person, “Do you think of yourself as a monkey?” when that person is complaining about an ape- or monkey-like action figure displayed in the workplace is insensitive and offensive. Even so, that offensive question is not sufficiently severe to constitute a racially hostile work environment. In Ayissi-Etoh, the D.C. Circuit suggested, without holding, that “the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as ‘nigger’ by a supervisor” could alone be sufficient to establish a hostile work environment. Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, 712 F.3d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (emphasis added) (some internal quotation marks omitted) F.3d 1507, 1513 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>); Caldwell v. ServiceMaster Corp., 966 F.Supp.
holding that the erroneous use of the term burglary in the beginning of the written jury instructions was not fundamental because any error was cured by the correct use of the term theft in the latter portion of the written instructions holding that a supervisors use of the term bitch in a written evaluation when viewed in context was possibly inappropriately phrased but not  conclusive of sex discrimination holding that the term bitch does not invariably indicate gender discrimination holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination holding that a trial courts use of the term alimony was not conclusive against a claim that the award was actually a property settlement