of her race or sex. (See supra Part II. B.l.) Moreover, the four-year investigation of Plaintiff was complex, and no evidence indicates that Defendants drew out' the length of the investigation on the basis of her race or sex. (See Johnson Dep. 16:17-25:4, 39:7-41:7; Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. G, at DOA0004.) The other events that comprise Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. See Cruz, 202 F.3d at 570. None of incidents Plaintiff alleges were “extraordinarily severe.” See Fincher, 604 F.3d at 724. Nor was the conduct physically threatening. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367. Plaintiff alleges that she was humiliated when Yanosik placed her und 2011 WL 830671, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2011) (<HOLDING>)...' Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for
holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive holding that allegations of explicitly racial comment threeday suspension forced overtime and written warning were insufficient to establish hostile work environment holding that allegations of work reassignment schedule changes increased scrutiny of plaintiffs work and a supervisors stray remarks were insufficient to establish hostile work environment recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 holding that a single offensive racist comment was not sufficient to establish a hostile work environment