than the “offhand remarks” in Manatt. The City notes, and it is true, that the FEHA, like Title VII, is not a civility code. Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264, 295, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 132 P.3d 211 (2006). And some acts in this case, including the “holder thingie” e-mail, are bereft of racial overtones. That being said, the numerous racial comments discussed above are more than just uncivil. The City also notes that Plaintiff has not sought employment outside the Water Division since 2002, and to the City, this cuts against Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim. An employee, however, need not quit or leave under circumstances amounting to a constructive discharge in order to preserve a viable hostile work environment claim. Cf. Manatt, 339 F.3d at 804 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff has created a triable issue as to
recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 recognizing that a constructive discharge claim and a hostile work environment claim are not equivalent because a constructive discharge claim imposes a higher standard holding that a claim of constructive discharge requires a showing of harassment that is more severe and pervasive than that required to show a hostile work environment holding the claim of constructive discharge does not accrue until an employee resigns holding that a failure to make out a hostile work environment claim effectively disposes of the constructive discharge claim as well