a sex-based hostile educational environment”). Plaintiff presents two arguments in opposition to summary judgment on this ground. First, Plaintiff contends that a jury could find that she suffered severe and pervasive sexual harassment because on March 8, 2012, the word “cunt” was keyed into the rear bumper of her car. See Pl.’s Post Summ. J. Hearing Br. 6 [#77] (“The carving of the word “c**t into Plaintiffs bumper was severe ;[and] by its very definition is sexual harassment.”). Plaintiff relies on Title VII case law in which courts have found that the repeated and pervasive use of sexually-degrading, gender-specific epithets and comments in the workplace may constitute actionable sexual harassment. See, e.g., Forrest v. Brinker Int’l Payroll Co., 511 F.3d 225, 229 (1st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Marrero v. Goya of P.R., Inc., 304 F.3d 7, 19
recognizing that a plaintiff can demonstrate that samesex harassment is because of sex by showing that the conduct was motivated by the coworkers sexual desire for persons of the same sex holding that restatement  2191 is inapplicable to alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor was sexual harassment within the scope of antonis employment of course not holding that sexual harassment need not take the form of sexual advances or other explicitly sexual conduct in order to be actionable under title vii holding that male coworkers conduct in inter alia repeatedly calk ing plaintiff a whore slut bitch and cunt over the course of months could constitute sexual harassment holding that evidence that male employees consistently called plaintiff whore floor whore curb whole curb side cunt and bitch a male employee pushed plaintiff against a wall and placed his knee between her legs and other men made comments to plaintiff that a woman had no place in a car dealership was sufficient to establish sexual harassment