VII liability.”). This is because what is important in a hostile environment claim is the environment, and [racially]-neutral harassment makes up an important part of the relevant work environment. Conduct that appears [racially]-neutral in isolation may in fact be [race]-based, but may appear so only when viewed in the context of other [race]-based behavior. Thus, when a plaintiff introduces evidence of both [race]-based and [race]neutral harassment, and when a jury, viewing the evidence in context, reasonably could view all of the allegedly harassing conduct ... as the product of [racial] hostility, then it is for the fact finder to decide whether such an.inference should be drawn. Chavez v. New Mexico, 397 F.3d 826, 833 (10th Cir.2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). Valley View’s argument that these three
holding in a ease of a reverse sting operation the use of a large amount of drugs did not amount to sentencing factor manipulation holding that loss of substantial clients does not amount to an unconscionable injury holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law holding that plaintiffs can use a substantial amount of arguably raciallylneutral harassment to bolster a smaller amount of raeebased conduct on summary judgment holding prejudgment interest is to be determined on the entire amount of compensatory damages and then reduced by the amount of interest which would have accrued at present value on the settlement amount determined before trial