to individual plaintiffs hostile work environment claim); Perry v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 115 F.3d 143, 151 (2d Cir.1997) (concluding evidence of harassment directed at women other than plaintiff is relevant to hostile environment analysis); cf. McPhaul v. Board of Comm’rs, 226 F.3d 558, 567 (7th Cir.2000) (harassing conduct directed at someone other than plaintiff, while relevant, does not have the same impact); Gleason v. Mesirow Fin., Inc., 118 F.3d 1134, 1144 (7th Cir.1997) (same); Schwapp v. Town of Avon, 118 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir.1997) (noting incidents directed at others or outside plaintiffs presence “may be of limited probative value” at trial). Furthermore, remarks made outside a plaintiffs presence can be relevant to a hostile work environment claim. See Schwapp, 118 F.3d at 111 (<HOLDING>); Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625, 633 (2d
holding that supervisors routine vulgar references to plaintiff could not support a hostile work environment claim because plaintiff was unaware of the comments and to show that he or she perceived the environment as hostile a title vii plaintiff must at least have been aware of those comments holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 holding comments made outside plaintiffs presence and learned secondhand may also contribute to a hostile work environment holding no hostile work environment created by slur uttered outside of plaintiffs presence