Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): No. 73 at page 30; see also CompL, Attach, of Photograph, ECF No. 1 at 19; Photographs, ECF No. 68-13 at 11-14. Properly viewing the facts in the light depicted by the photographs, see PL’s Resp. SMF, ECF No. 73 ¶ 30 (“The [pjhoto of the item speaks for itself.”); cf. Armbruster v. Frost, 962 F.Supp.2d 105, 110 (D.D.C. 2013) (explaining that where a court has the benefit of video evidence, it should view the facts in the light depicted by the videotape when deciding summary judgment motions), it is undisputed that there was a monkey-like, ape-like, or Bigfoot-like action figure tightly wrapped — as if mummified — by a thin white cord or rope from the action figure’s ankles to its chest, with additional strands wrapped around the action figure’s neck and arm D.C. 2013) (Sullivan, J.) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 154 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff stated a claim of hostile work environment where the court accepted as true the allegation that a monkey doll was hung by its neck in a nooselike fashion in a public work area of an office (B) holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive (C) holding that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was a racially hostile work environment when plaintiff was subjected to several statements involving racial epithets and a nude black doll was hung from a noose in his locker (D) recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context (E) recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983
Output (English): holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive