when deciding whether a hostile work environment exists including: ‘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.’ ” Id. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)). Here, the comments and expressions of exasperation occurred largely at committee meetings. Further, the comments were not physically threatening and there is no evidence that the comments affected Bruce’s work performance. While offensive in nature, these sporadic comments are simply not severe or pervasive enough to establish a prima facie case for a hostile work environment claim. See id. at 679 (<HOLDING>). C. Retaliation Claim To establish a prima
holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive holding that the fact that the offensive material was not directed specifically at the plaintiff does not as a matter of law preclude a jury from finding that the conduct subjected her to a hostile work environment based on her sex holding that a single offensive racist comment was not sufficient to establish a hostile work environment recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 holding that referring to a female colleague as dancing girl or call girl ignoring her except to comment on her appearance and another female employees quitting because of the same person was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment because the offensive utterances do not rise to the level required by the supreme courts definition of a hostile work environment