at 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (explaining that Title VII is not a "general civility code”). 32 . Although White’s brief includes two other allegations of race-based remarks by colleagues, neither of those allegations affects our analysis of her hostile work environment claim. First, White claims, based on the affidavit of a former coworker, that when she was out of the office "members of the management team and other office personnel referred to her as 'Sasquatch.' ” Because there is no evidence that White was aware of the remarks made behind her back, those alleged comments could not have contributed to a hostile work environment. See, e.g., Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., 443 F.3d 629, 636-37 (8th Cir.2006) (collecting cases); Edwards v. Wallace Community College, 49 F.3d 1517, 1522 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Second, White alleges that she and her sister
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 holding that ajlthough a continuing pattern of hostile or abusive behavior is ordinarily required to establish a hostile environment a single instance can suffice when it is sufficiently egregious and holding that the plaintiff established that she suffered a sexually hostile working environment where she alleged she was raped by a male coworker holding that plaintiffs allegation of one incident where supervisor wrapped his arms around her and made sexually explicit statements was not sufficient to establish a claim of a hostile working environment absent the most stringent circumstances courts have refused to hold that one incident in itself was so severe as to create a hostile work environment 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 plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them