mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee’ [does] not affect the conditions of employment to [such a] sufficiently significant degree [as] to violate Title VII.”) (quoting Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F.2d 234, 238 (5th Cir.1971)). Additionally, the record is devoid of any description of daily hostility from the Finance Officer beyond general rudeness, which, as plaintiff admitted at deposition, was often directed at everyone. The only specific vulgarity regularly attributed to him, i.e., “spic,” though objectionable in the extreme, did not contribute to the hostility of plaintiffs daily work environment because she did not hear him, or anyone else, use that word. See Shields v. Fed. Express Corp., 120 Fed.Appx. 956, 961 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The daily hostility that plaintiff
holding no hostile work environment created by slur uttered outside of plaintiffs presence recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive holding comments made outside plaintiffs presence and learned secondhand may also contribute to a hostile work environment recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983