kisses on the cheek in a two-year period, in the absence of any other discriminatory or offensive treatment, do not meet the threshold this Court has established for hostile work environment claims. See, e.g., Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305 n. 5 (2d Cir.1995) (“[Ijsolated remarks or occasional episodes of harassment will not merit relief under Title VII; in order to be actionable, the incidents of harassment must occur in concert or with a regularity that can reasonably be termed pervasive.” (citations omitted)). Although the alleged incidents may have been “offensive and inappropriate, they are sufficiently isolated and discrete that a trier of fact could not reasonably conclude that they pervaded [the plaintiffs] work environment.” Quinn, 159 F.3d at 768; see also id. (<HOLDING>). Having found that the plaintiff failed to
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 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 plaintiffs allegations that coworker attempted to grab her breast and later touched and rubbed her thigh that customers made sexually threatening remarks and that supervisors did not respond to her complaints about these incidents did not support a hostile work environment claim holding that two alleged incidents of hostile treatment in which a supervisor made a comment about the plaintiffs body and touched her breasts with some papers did not constitute a hostile work environment