action figure display. Ms. Toomer contends that Ms. Stiger’s alleged comments — especially her question to Ms. Toomer, “[D]o you think of yourself as a monkey?,” Dec. 2, 2013 Toomer Dep., ECF No. 68-1 at 147:17-26 — sustains- a hostile work environment claim. See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 99 at 15-16. She argues that Magistrate Judge Harvey erred in categorizing Ms. Stiger’s comments as a non-actionable “stray remark” because those comments were “connected- to an ongoing racially offensive event,” — ie.,'the action figure display. Id. Ms. Toomer contends that Ms. Stiger’s comments were not merely insensitive, unresponsive, or indifferent, as Magistrate Judge Harvey characterized them, but rather were “a callous validation of an extremely offensive 07333, at *10-11 (D. Colo. June 29, 2000) (<HOLDING>). This Court has said in the past — and
holding that a plaintiff stated a claim of hostile work environment where the court accepted as true the allegation that a monkey doll was hung by its neck in a nooselike fashion in a public work area of an office holding that alleged statements to thirdparties did not substantiate a hostile work environment claim where there was insufficient information as to when the statements were made how knowledge of them was acquired and when the plaintiff was informed of them if she was holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive holding that a hostile work environment claim survived summary judgment where evidence demonstrated years of inflammatory racial epithets including nigger and little black monkey holding that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was a racially hostile work environment when plaintiff was subjected to several statements involving racial epithets and a nude black doll was hung from a noose in his locker