his grievance against Locksley. Gerald thus complains of only a few, discrete incidents. The small number of incidents on which Gerald bases his claims is not fatal if the incidents are adequately severe. “[T]he required showing of severity or seriousness of the harassing conduct varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct.” Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 878 (9th Cir.1991)(citing King v. Bd. of Regents, 898 F.2d 533, 537 (7th Cir.1990)). There is no minimum number of incidents or pattern of behavior that Gerald must allege. In Rocha Vigil v. City of Las Cruces, 119 F.3d 871 (10th Cir.1997), the Tenth Circuit stated: In line with Hams, other circuits have recognize L.Ed.2d 335 (1996); Gross v. Burggraf Construction Co., 53 F.3d 1531, 1547 (10th Cir.l995)(<HOLDING>); Bolden v. PRC Inc., 43 F.3d 545, 551 (10th
holding one single statement that could be construed as genderbased and hostile was insufficient to demonstrate hostile work environment under meritor sav bank fsb v vinson recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983