With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Defining “sexual harassment” in the context of a Title VII claim, the Second Circuit has held that it “includes ‘conduct [that] has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” ’ Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic, 385 F.3d 210, 220-21 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Fitzgerald v. Henderson, 251 F.3d 345, 356 (2d Cir.2001), and 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a)). The Petrosino Court went on to hold that “incessant sexually offensive exchanges ... and omnipresent sexual graffiti,” when viewed as a whole, could constitute severe or pervasive sexual harassment in the Title VII context. Id. at 221, 223-24. See also Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276, 289 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Further, the Supreme Court has explicitly

A: holding that samesex sexual harassment claims are not actionable under title vii
B: holding that sexual harassment need not take the form of sexual advances or other explicitly sexual conduct in order to be actionable under title vii
C: holding that supervisors questions made two and three times a week about plaintiffs sexual activities constituted actionable sexual harassment
D: holding that samcscx sexual harassment claims are actionable under title vii
B.