often questioned Latino workers if they had paid for their bottled drinks but never questioned white employees. Id. at 563-64. The district court granted summary judgment for Valley View on Ms. Hernandez’s hostile working environment claim. It characterized Ms. Hernandez’s evidence as only “a handful of racially insensitive jokes and comments over a period of more than three years,” which, “while not laudable,” would not support a racial or national origin hostile work environment claim. Aplt. App. at 613. It held the evidence demonstrated that Ms. Hernandez’s supervisors were “boorish, infantile, and unprofessional,” but ruled that she failed to present evidence of a “ ‘steady barrage of opprobrious racial comments.’ ” Id. (quoting Bolden v. PRC Inc., 43 F.3d 545, 551 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The
recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 holding that a plaintiff does not make a sufficient showing of a pervasively hostile work environment with a few isolated incidents but must show a steady barrage of opprobrious racial comments 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 holding that to establish a hostile work environment plaintiff must prove more than a few isolated incidents of racial enmity and cjasual comments or accidental or sporadic conversation will not trigger equitable relief pursuant to the statute holding that to meet his burden the plaintiff must show more than a few isolated incidents and that evidence solely of sporadic discrimination does not suffice