and there is no evidence in the record that he was present for, or even knew about, these incidents. While it is firmly established law that a hostile work environment may be supported by incidents of harassment that were witnessed by but not directed at a plaintiff, it is less clear that this Court may consider incidents that Plaintiff did not even know about, and that could not possibly have contributed to Plaintiff’s subjective impression of the hostility of his work environment. Spriggs, 242 F.3d at 184 (“Although [Defendant] contends that conduct targeted at persons other than [Plaintiff] cannot be considered, its position finds no support in the law.”). Other circuits have taken differing views on this issue. Compare Rodgers v. W.-S. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 668, 674 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) with Hawkins v. AnheuserBusch, Inc., 517 F.3d
holding that plaintiffs work environment was not affected by comments and conduct of which she was not aware holding that a court may consider the lexicon of obscenity that pervaded the environment of the work place both before and after the plaintiffs introduction into its environs holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion holding that a hostile work environment is a form of discrimination that is actionable under the statute holding that where the plaintiffs allegations concerning a hostile work environment consist of facts that occurred more than one year before the filing of the complaint such a claim is timebarred