See Carter v. Mineta, 125 Fed.Appx. 231, 238 (10th Cir.2005); Mitchell v. City and Cnty. of Denver, 112 Fed.Appx. 662, 671 (10th Cir.2004). To establish a hostile-work-environment claim, “a plaintiff must show that a rational jury could find that the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Davis v. U.S. Postal Serv., 142 F.3d 1334, 1341 (10th Cir.1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “A discriminatory and abusive environment must affect the employee’s work environment so substantially as to make it intolerable for her to continue.” Creamer v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 86 F.3d 167, 170 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). “The mere utterance of a statement which
holding that sexrelated statements by a coworker made to the plaintiff while she was at home and on suspension from work did not amount to improper conduct at the workplace and therefore did not constitute actionable sexual harassment holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination holding that the allegations of plaintiffs coemployees of sexual harassment by manager were irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of the alleged harassment holding single incident of sexual harassment was neither sufficiently pervasive nor severe to constitute a hostile work environment holding that a work environment did not contain pervasive harassment when the plaintiff made general allegations of frequent sexual slurs and the only specific incident cited involved a coworker grabbing the plaintiff