in his department “all socialize together ... like, eat[ing] lunch together ... [and] talking]. Sometimes somebody [would] tell a joke or something.”); 58 (testifying that he and Mr. Newell “would tease each other all day. That would make our day go by.”); see also id. at 46 (agreeing that his subsequent supervisor, Ms. Gaskins was “a harsher supervisor than Mr. Wallace ....”); Ex. B, Curry Dep. at 33 (stating that prior to the incident, the working atmosphere was “relaxed ....”). Nonetheless, plaintiff argues that this one incident was so severe that it alone establishes that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. The Court cannot agree with this assessment. First, it is undis puted that the .incident lasted a few seconds and aft es, Inc., 277 F.3d 128, 136 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, given the totality of the
holding that a plaintiffs psychological distress was not vicarious in a hostile work environment case where she experienced her workplace as hostile by reason of the alleged harassment of other women out of her presence recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive holding that ajlthough a continuing pattern of hostile or abusive behavior is ordinarily required to establish a hostile environment a single instance can suffice when it is sufficiently egregious and holding that the plaintiff established that she suffered a sexually hostile working environment where she alleged she was raped by a male coworker holding that supervisors routine vulgar references to plaintiff could not support a hostile work environment claim because plaintiff was unaware of the comments and to show that he or she perceived the environment as hostile a title vii plaintiff must at least have been aware of those comments