375 F.3d 206, 227 (2d Cir. 2004)). However, “[t]here is no fixed number of incidents that a plaintiff must endure in order to establish a hostile work environment,” and instead, courts are to “view the circumstances in their totality, examining the nature, severity, and frequency of the conduct.” Alfano, 294 F.3d at 379. What is necessary is that plaintiff establishes a link between the actions by defendant and plaintiffs membership in a protected class. Id. at 374; Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246, 252 (2d Cir. 2001). As addressed above in the discussion regarding plaintiffs sex discrimination claim, plaintiff has not presented any evidence linking Jones’s actions to plaintiffs gender. As a result, plaintiffs hostile work environment claim is dismissed. See Alfano, 294 F.3d at 378 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons,
holding that a hostile work environment is a form of discrimination that is actionable under the statute holding that a failure to make out a hostile work environment claim effectively disposes of the constructive discharge claim as well recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 holding that in order to make out a hostile work environment claim plaintiff must provide evidence indicating that the defendants actions were motivated by discrimination recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context