With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". incident — reflecting conduct that is not pervasive or frequent — may be sufficiently severe to constitute sexual harassment, it must be “extremely serious” in order to “amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment.’ ” Id. (quoting Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275). As this court recently noted, “[t]he determination of whether alleged conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive is not an exact science, but this [cjourt’s decisions on this issue provide guidance.” Gibson v. Potter, 264 Fed.Appx. 397, 400 (5th Cir.2008). The type of non-consensual physical touching alleged by Paul was held to be actionable under Title VII only in cases where it was chronic and frequent. See McKinnis v. Crescent Guardian, Inc., 189 Fed.Appx. 307, 310 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Harvill, 433 F.3d at 435-36 (holding that

A: holding that chronic unwanted touching including touching on the breasts and thigh over a yearlong period repeated demands for hugs and kisses and other inappropriate behavior resulting in plaintiffs resignation supported a hostile work environment claim
B: recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983
C: holding that consideration of the entire scope of a hostile work environment claim including behavior alleged outside the statutory time period is permissible for the purposes of assessing liability so long as any act contributing to that hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period
D: holding that two alleged incidents of hostile treatment in which a supervisor made a comment about the plaintiffs body and touched her breasts with some papers did not constitute a hostile work environment
A.