With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for a sexual harassment claim in cases where the alleged conduct was particularly egregious. See Taylor-Rogers v. Robb & Stucky, Ltd., 82 Fed.Appx. 974, 975 (5th Cir.2003) (evidence that a co-employee rubbed up against plaintiff on a daily basis, and had simulated a sex act with her, unbuttoned her blouse and touched her breast underneath her bra, was “sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment”). However, in circumstances where the alleged conduct was either similar, or more objectionable and frequent than, Barattini’s, this court has held that non-pervasive conduct involving physical touching — including unwanted touching of intimate body parts — was not actionable under Title VII. See Gibson, 264 Fed. Appx. at 398 (<HOLDING>); Hockman v. Westward Commc’ns, LLC, 407 F.3d

A: holding that harassing conduct not sufficiently severe and pervasive where conduct would not have affected the work environment of a reasonable person
B: holding that plaintiffs work environment was not affected by comments and conduct of which she was not aware
C: holding that a single incident in which a coworker squeezed an employees buttocks was not sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive working environment
D: holding that conduct of supervisor who grabbed plaintiff on the buttocks and made suggestive comments while she was conversing with another employee was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter a term or condition of plaintiffs employment
D.