623 (D.Md.2002). The Court will not analyze here whether such a cause of action exists because, even assuming arguendo that it does, Moham-madian’s facts fail to support such a claim. In their rulings on hostile work environment under the ADA, courts have adopted the standard set forth by Harris v. Forklift, 510 U.S. 17, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993), for Title VII claims, requiring plaintiffs to prove that their workplace was “permeated with insult, ridicule, and intimidation”. Occasional insulting comments and behavior, no matter how hurtful, are insufficient to support a claim of hostile work environment. Id. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367. To successfully establish a prima facie claim of hostile working environment under the ADA, the plaintiff must therefore prove tha (N.D.Okla.1996)(<HOLDING>). In this case, assuming without deciding that
recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims holding that calling an employee with mental health issues names like crazy and lunatic did not suffice to create a hostile work environment holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive