With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or discriminatory conduct toward women in the office), alongside Junk’s discriminatory statements about women in the workplace, R. 31-3 (Gullett Aff. ¶ 20) (Page ID #407), would permit a reasonable juror to conclude that there was a hostile work environment. In one particularly egregious example, reasonable jurors could even find that Junk’s conduct was “physically threatening.” Phillips, 854 F.3d at 327, At a point when Junk and Daniels “were not on good terms,” Junk— while holding an AR-15—told Daniels, “Don’t worry, I’m not that mad, ha, ha, ha, ha.” R. 26-2 (Daniels Dep. at 30-31) (Page ID #235-36). Other courts have held similar behavior to constitute a hostile work environment, and I would do the same here. See Cordero-Suárez v. Rodríguez, 689 F.3d 77, 79, 82-83 (1st Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). I would also reverse the district court’s

A: holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive
B: holding that a supervisor who approached an employees desk with a workissued gun and said im going to screw you up contributed to a hostile work environment
C: recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983
D: recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims
B.