With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". environment was hostile as an objective matter. Stated differently, the court believes that no reasonable jury, viewing the totality of the circumstances, could conclude from the evidence adduced by the plaintiff that the alleged harassment she suffered was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of her employment. She remained the highest earning MLO, even after the comments began and turned down a more lucrative job offer just a few months before she was terminated. The remarks complained of. were not so extreme as to constitute a change in the terms and conditions of the plaintiffs employment and did not otherwise interfere with her work. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275; see also Clark v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 400 F.3d 341, 344-45, 351-52 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted

A: holding that a plaintiff could not make out an aetionable hostile work environment claim where supervisor told vulgar jokes placed his vibrating pager against her upper thigh on two occasions as he walked by her in the hall and asked if it felt good and pulled at her overalls after she told him she was wearing a thong
B: holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim
C: holding that conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive where a supervisor allegedly touched plaintiffs hand and thigh lifted her dress hem repeatedly asked her to lunch told her that she was beautiful stared at her and called her home on numerous occasions at night and asked about personal matters
D: holding that a plaintiffs psychological distress was not vicarious in a hostile work environment case where she experienced her workplace as hostile by reason of the alleged harassment of other women out of her presence
A.