with the EEOC on March 30, 1995. Although most of the alleged events occurred outside of the 180-day period, this observation overlooks facts representing a hostile work environment. The pleadings establish that beginning in 1991, when Augat purchased National Industries, Sweeney directed lewd and demeaning remarks, sexual advances, and patently offensive behavior at the Plaintiff, continuing until September 1995 when the Plaintiff was allegedly constructively discharged. The connection between these alleged incidents is sufficient at this stage of the litigation to be considered an ongoing pattern of racial discrimination and sexual harassment by Augat, constituting a hostile work environment. See, e.g., Saville v. Houston County Healthcare Auth., 852 F.Supp. 1512, 1522 (M.D.Ala.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accord Quillen v. American Tobacco Co., 874
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 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 a charge that alleged discrimination on the basis of sex did not support a complaint for hostile environment sexual harassment holding single incident of sexual harassment was neither sufficiently pervasive nor severe to constitute a hostile work environment 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