extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment.’ ” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (reversing the vacation of a judgment for the plaintiff following a bench trial). In determining the existence of a hostile work environment, the totality of the circumstances must be examined. Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251, 260 (3d Cir.2001) (reversing summary judgment on a hostile work environment claim). Circumstances include the “frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23,114 S.Ct. 367 (<HOLDING>). Respondeat superior liability exists where
holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity holding that status as competing family business owners did not give petitioners sufficient social visibility to be perceived as a group by society holding that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized holding a court need not find the harassment to be psychologically injurious so long as the environment would reasonably be perceived and is perceived as hostile or abusive holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties