524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998)). The “ ‘mere utterance of an ... epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment.’ ” Id. (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367). Peterson’s behavior, while somewhat inappropriate, was not frequent, severe, or physically threatening. Indeed, the “Big Kahuna” fax was not even aimed at Lamb. It is uncontroverted that Peterson sent the fax as a joking reprimand to a (male) dispatcher who was watching television on the job. See Long v. Eastfield College, 88 F.3d 300, 309 (5th Cir.1996) (distinguishing the “mere offensive utterance” from “physically threatening or humiliating conduct”); DeAngelis v. El Paso Police Officers Ass’n, 51 F.3d 591, 593 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Farpella-Crosby v. Horizon Health Care,
holding that a single incident in which a coworker squeezed an employees buttocks was not sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive working environment recognizing that an injury arises out of the employment relationship if it can be traced to the nature of employment or the workplace environment holding that language in employee handbook stating that it was not to be considered as creating terms and conditions of an employment contract and that the employment relationship was employment atwill  was sufficiently explicit to preclude the creation of implied contractual obligations as a matter of law recognizing that conduct amounts to actionable sexual harassment only when it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive working environment  alteration in original citation omitted holding that conduct that sporadically wounds or offends is not so egregious as to alter the conditions of employment and destroy womens equal opportunity in the workplace