With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". changes in the terms and conditions of employment”); Chamberlin v. 101 Realty, Inc., 915 F.2d 777, 783 (1st Cir.1990) (“[A]n isolated sexual advance, without more, does not satisfy the requirement that an employee asserting a cause of action for hostile environment discrimination demonstrate an abusive workplace environment.”). There was no proof that Peter Rodriguez touched or physically threatened Pomales. While we do not preclude the possibility of a single-incident hostile work environment claim based on exclusively verbal conduct, successful single-incident claims typically have involved unwanted physical contact. See Barbara Lindemann & Paul Gross-man, Employment Discrimination Law at 795 n. 240 (3d ed.1996) (collecting cases). Finally, Pomales presented no h Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

A: holding that evidence of a single battery and two offensive remarks over six months did not establish a hostile environment
B: holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive
C: recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983
D: holding that a single offensive racist comment was not sufficient to establish a hostile work environment
A.