manipulating her performance appraisal; providing unrealistic goals; ignoring or refusing various requests; and being subject to micro-management. Id. at 6 & Ex. 1. Neither party provides the court with the e-mails in question; thus, the court is unable to assess the nature of the e-mails the plaintiff received following the recording of her EEO complaint. It is possible that these e-mails contain racial slurs and epithets that would reach the requisite level of severity or that they occurred with such frequency that the harassment was pervasive. See George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 417 (D.C.Cir.2005) (stating that “isolated incidents” lack the pervasiveness required to “form the basis for a Title YII violation”); Bowen v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 311 F.3d 878, 885 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Baloch v. Norton, 355 F.Supp.2d 246, 260
holding that the employers routine use of racial slurs constitutes direct evidence that racial animus was a motivating factor in the contested disciplinary decisions holding that a supervisors routine use of racial slurs constitutes direct evidence that racial animus was a motivating factor in the contested disciplinary decisions holding that use of racial slurs by managers responsible for the decision regarding a plaintiffs termination constitutes direct evidence holding that plaintiff stated iied claim where officers yelled racial slurs at attacked and filed false charges against him holding that the use of racial slurs and menacing remarks constitute severe conduct