evidence relating to harassment of which she was aware during the time that she was allegedly subject to a hostile work environment.” Hirase-Doi v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 61 F.3d 777, 782 (10th Cir.1995). Where the plaintiff and her female coworkers were harassed by a male coworker, the Tenth Circuit stated in Hirase-Doi that the plaintiff “could not subjectively perceive [her coworker’s] behavior towards others as creating a hostile work environment unless she knew about that behavior.” Id.; cf. Pryor v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, 212 F.3d 976, 978 (7th Cir.2000) (noting that supervisor’s alleged leering at employee without employee knowing it was irrelevant to employee’s Title VII sexual harassment claim); Burnett v. Tyco Corp., 203 F.3d 980, 981 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Bradshaw v. Golden Rd. Motor Inn, 885 F.Supp.
holding that harassment of women working alongside plaintiff was relevant to question of creation of environment viola tive of title vii  although vinson was a sexual harassment case the principles underlying a hostile environment theory are equally applicable in sexual harassment and racial harassment cases holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination holding that certain conduct was irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of it holding that the allegations of plaintiffs coemployees of sexual harassment by manager were irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of the alleged harassment holding that allegations of failure to remedy a hostile work environment provided no basis for relief where the evidence demonstrated that the harassment had ended by the time plaintiffs complaint was filed