was told he needed to “go back to the jungle,” and Ku Klux Klan material was shown to an African-American employee on the internet. 446 F.Supp.2d 615, 627 (W.D.Va.2006). In granting summary judgment, the Court held that the acts of harassment plaintiff experienced were insufficiently frequent because he could only identify eight acts that took place over the course of twenty years. Id. Similarly, in Rose, this Court granted summary judgment for defendant because plaintiff could only identify two relatively non-severe racial insults that were nonthreatening, and that did not appear to adversely impact plaintiffs ability to do her job. 2006 WL 173690, at *4. The racial comments at issue in Orenge v. Veneman were similarly infrequent and non-threatening. 218 F.Supp.2d 758, 767 (D.Md.2002) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged
holding that a prima facie case of discrimination is not established merely by the number of peremptory strikes against blacks in cases where the percentage of blacks on the empaneled jury is higher than the percentage of the venire pool holding that white female had standing under title vii to challenge her employees alleged racial discrimination against blacks holding that the statement at your age i dont believe you could pass the test is not direct evidence of age discrimination holding that blacks who were not subjected to racial discrimination had standing under title vii to sue over discrimination against other blacks holding that repeated racial comments such as whites will never trust blacks again blacks are trying to get a free ride and you guys dont pull your weight did not rise to the level of severe or pervasive