to the question of whether Wal-Mart’s assertion that Mazur was on probation has a basis in fact. Mazur does not allege that Hamacher invented the incident in order to cause Mazur to be put on probation, much less that Eldridge placed Mazur on probation for an incident she knew did not happen; nor does the record provide support for such a claim. 5 . Mazur also alleges that Hamacher called him a “stupid moron plate-head” on one occasion. However, Mazur himself stated that he did not hear from Bell that Hamacher had called him a “plate-head moron” until after Wal-Mart terminated him. Therefore, this comment could not have contributed to Mazur experiencing a hostile work environment. See Langlois v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Mich., Inc., 149 Mich.App. 309, 385 N.W.2d 778, 782 (1986) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Bell testified in her deposition that
holding that the plaintiff failed to state an agebased hostile work environment claim where the plaintiffs proffered evidence was nothing more than a collection of unrelated and infrequent incidents of conduct by the defendants that the plaintiff subjectively construe as acts motived by agerelated animus and which was devoid of the agerelated comments or ridicule that are hallmarks of hostile work environment claims holding that harassing conduct not sufficiently severe and pervasive where conduct would not have affected the work environment of a reasonable person holding that certain conduct was irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of it holding that plaintiffs work environment was not affected by comments and conduct of which she was not aware 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