With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (stating, that "th[e] [plaintiff's hostile work environment] claim [wa]s wholly unsupported by the summary judgment evidence regardless of the time frame considered, as the district court correctly held” (internal citation omitted)); Sabzevari v. Reliable Life Ins. Co., 264 Fed. Appx. 392, 394 (5th Cir.2008) (unpublished) ("We need not decide [the exhaustion] issue. Even if we assume that Sabzevari has exhausted his administrative remedies, summary judgment on the failure-to-promote claim is proper because Reliable has articulated a legitimate, nondis F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir.2007) (recognizing that a supervisor’s reference to inner-city children as "ghetto children" was "perhaps racially inappropriate”). 35 . Id. at 348. Compare Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615, 619-22 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Daniels v. Essex Group, Inc., 937 F.2d 1264,

A: holding that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was a racially hostile work environment when plaintiff was subjected to several statements involving racial epithets and a nude black doll was hung from a noose in his locker
B: recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983
C: holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive
D: holding that a hostile work environment claim survived summary judgment where evidence demonstrated years of inflammatory racial epithets including nigger and little black monkey
D.