With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the plaintiffs employment severely enough to support a hostile work environment claim. Id. Other courts have also noted the severe impact of the use of the word. See Bailey v. Binyon, 583 F.Supp. 923, 927 (N.D.Ill.1984). “The use of the word ‘niggeP automatically separates the person addressed from every non-black person; this is discrimination per se.” Id. In addition, in the present case, it is undisputed that Vasilopulos not only used the word “nigger” in the exchange with Tutman but Vasilopulos also threatened to kill Tutman. This added physical threat makes the present case distinguishable from cases in which the Seventh Circuit has held that there was no hostile work environment as a matter of law. See McKenzie v. Illinois Dep’t of Transportation, 92 F.3d 473, 480 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Drake v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 134

A: recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims
B: holding that three sexually suggestive comments over a three month period were not frequent enough nor severe enough to be unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs work environment
C: holding that a three to four month period between the protected activity is not enough to show very close temporal proximity
D: holding that a two month period might be enough  to prove the causation prong
B.