With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". filed a sexual harassment complaint. The jury answered “no.” Because Chesloff was no longer working in the hostile environment, we hold that these post-termination acts are not within her hostile environment claim. See, e.g., Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 731 (6th Cir.2014) (“Unlike a Title VII anti-discrimination claim, - ‘the anti-retaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace,’ ”) (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 2409, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006)). Filing a lawsuit against a former employee is a discrete act that is not inherently harassing conduct of the type prohibited by sexual harassment law. See, e.g., Bartosh, 259 S.W.3d at 325-26 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that the June 2009 and

A: holding that employee failed to preserve hostile work environment claim when only timely allegation of discrimination was based on termination because termination is not itself harassing conduct
B: recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983
C: recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context
D: holding that a hostile work environment is a form of discrimination that is actionable under the statute
A.