Goodwin’s actions listed as the tenth and eleventh items in the preceding paragraph. See PL’s Dep. at 161-62; 167-68. The Supreme Court has expressly stated that “if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22, 114 S.Ct. 367. Conduct that Plaintiff did not know about, therefore, cannot be used to establish that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. See Weger v. City of Ladue, 500 F.3d 710, 736 (8th Cir.2007) (“Assuming plaintiffs were unaware of the incidents, they cannot be used to prove their substantive hostile work environment claims.”); Burnett v. Tyco Corp., 203 F.3d 980, 981 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Hirase-Doi v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.,
holding that certain conduct was irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of it holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 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 that plaintiffs work environment was not affected by comments and conduct of which she was not aware