points to the comments made by Fox as well as those by various co-workers who remarked that “[tjhere are white people and white trash and there are good niggers and bad niggers and there are good Mexicans and bad Mexicans,” that “one of those Mexican spies” should clean up his work area, and that certain jobs were for white people only. To the extent the comments are substantiated, Maldonado has not demonstrated that he experienced harassment severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. See Williams v. Waste Mgmt. of Ill, Inc., 361 F.3d 1021, 1029 (7th Cir.2004); Luckie v. Ameritech Corp., 389 F.3d 708, 713 (7th Cir.2004). His co-workers’ comments were infrequent, and they were not directed at him; he overheard or was told about them. See Luckie, 389 F.3d at 714 (<HOLDING>). Although Fox, the former supervisor, directed
holding that comments not directed at plaintiff including a supervisor who called another worker the nword were relevant to the evaluation of hostile work environment claim holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive holding that the fact that the offensive material was not directed specifically at the plaintiff does not as a matter of law preclude a jury from finding that the conduct subjected her to a hostile work environment based on her sex holding that plaintiff did not establish a severe or pervasive hostile work environment where the complained of conduct was episodic but not so frequent as to become pervasive was never severe was never physically threatening though occasionally discomforting or mildly humiliating and significantly was never according to the record an impediment to the plaintiffs work performance holding that no hostile work environment existed where the conduct in question consists of isolated events that were not physically threatening or humiliating and in some cases were not even directed at plaintiff