Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., Docket No. 2011-1705-MAPS (Feb. 22, 2012), aff'd, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 12-AA-32 (Jul. 5, 2012); Rogers v. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., Docket No. 2009-0685-MAPS (Apr. 23, 2009), aff'd, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 09-AA-92 (Dec. 8, 2010). The point at which a work environment becomes hostile or abusive does not depend on any “mathematically precise test.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22 (1993). Instead, “the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, ‘considering all the circumstances.’” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (citing Harris, 510 U.S. at 23). These circumstances “may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance” but “no single factor is required.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. “To create a hostile work environment, inappropriate conduct must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of an employee’s employment. See Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W. Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741 (1995).” Napier v. Stratton, 204 W. Va. 415, 513 S.E.2d 463, 467 (1998) (per curiam). “As a general rule ‘more than a few isolated incidents are required’ to meet the pervasive requirement of proof for a hostile work environment case. Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 568, 573 (8th Cir. 1997).” Fairmont Specialty Servs. v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm’n, 206 W. Va. 86, 96, 522 S.E.2d 180, 190 n.9 (1999).

Grievant's attempts to prove harassment or disparate treatment elicited unfavorable testimony. Grievant asked Ms. Ellis if Grievant had consulted her regarding bullying in the office. In reply, Ms. Ellis stated that Grievant has claimed bullying by