upon the factual situation in each individual grievance." Sellers v. Wetzel County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-52-183 (Sept. 30, 1997).

This Board has generally followed the analysis of the federal and state courts in determining what constitutes a hostile work environment. Beverly v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2014-0461-DOT (Aug. 19, 2014), aff'd, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 14-AA-95 (Mar. 31, 2015); Vance v. 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,