to the employee’s Title VII sexual harassment claim.”); Baker, 382 F.3d at 828 (stating that “the victim must subjectively believe her working conditions have been altered”). “[I]f the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22, 114 S.Ct. 367. We first consider Cottrill’s hostile work environment claim. Cottrill was not aware of the peeping, stating in her deposition that she did not know that Adkins was viewing her. Because she did not subjectively perceive the peeping, Cottrill may not rely on the peeping to establish that her work environment was hostile. A Title VII plaintiff “may only rely o 370, 1381 (D.Nev.1995) (<HOLDING>). In addition, this case is factually
holding that plaintiff cannot meet hostile work environment threshold simply by pointing to comments directed at other individuals recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims holding that plaintiffs work environment was not affected by comments and conduct of which she was not aware holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive 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