action.” Id. at 17. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Harvey’s analysis of Ms. Toomer’s hostile work environment claim and therefore overrules Ms.' Toomer’s objections to the contrary. 1. The Action Figure Display It is undisputed that the action figure at issue in this case “was brown in color, made of hard plastic, had reticulat-ing arms and logs, had fur engraved in the plastic and was approximately six to eight inches in length.” Def.’s SMF, ECF No. 68 ¶ 21; Pl.’s Resp. SMF, ECF No. 73 at page 30. There is also no dispute that the photographs of the action figure display in the record accurately depict the action figure display as it appeared to Ms. Toomer from June 8 through June 23, 2010. Def.’s SMF, ECF No. 68 ¶ 29; PL’s Resp. SMF, pp.2d 820, 822-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (<HOLDING>); Gooden v. Timpte, Inc., No. 99-795, 2000 WL
recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive recognizing that a claim of hostile environment sex discrimination is actionable under title vii holding that a hostile work environment is a form of discrimination that is actionable under the statute holding that a noose displayed prominently in a supervisors office gave rise to an actionable hostile work environment claim