Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): show the hostile treatment was based on their protected status.”). Indeed, Plaintiff herself believed that much of the hostility she faced was because she had cooperated with the investigation of the onion incident and created a patient-care report for the medication that was used on Roberts, which report contradicted a supervisor’s explanation. Hostile treatment based on Plaintiffs cooperation in the investigation does not provide evidence that these incidents were motivated by Plaintiffs sex. Further, even if Plaintiff had presented evidence that this allegedly negative treatment was motivated by her sex, the treatment was not sufficiently “severe or pervasive” to support a hostile work environment claim. Compare Adams v. Austal, U.S.A, L.L.C., 754 F.3d 1240, 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>) and Gupta v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive where over twoweek period a coworker stood behind the plaintiff to create physical contact surreptitiously looked at the plaintiffs genitals in the restroom and engaged in unwanted touching (B) holding that a plaintiff is not required to state the statutory or constitutional basis for his claim only the facts underlying it (C) holding that plaintiff did not establish a severe or pervasive hostile work environment where the complained of conduct was episodic but not so frequent as to become pervasive was never severe was never physically threatening though occasionally discomforting or mildly humiliating and significantly was never according to the record an impediment to the plaintiffs work performance (D) holding that harassing conduct not sufficiently severe and pervasive where conduct would not have affected the work environment of a reasonable person (E) holding that conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive where an africanamerican plaintiff saw his coworkers wear the confederate flag on a regular basis saw racist graffiti in the mens restroom that he used on a daily basis heard people say the slur nigger but only a few times  and heard about a noose being left in the breakroom though he did not see it himself
Output (English): holding that conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive where over twoweek period a coworker stood behind the plaintiff to create physical contact surreptitiously looked at the plaintiffs genitals in the restroom and engaged in unwanted touching