“[T]he plaintiff has presented evidence of a pattern of race-based harassment, it is appropriate for the Court to consider incidents of non-race-based harassment. Compare EEOC v. WC&M Enters., Inc., 496 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2007) (determining that a fact finder could reasonably conclude that a co-worker’s frequent banging on the glass partition of the plaintiff’s office was motivated by animus related to the plaintiff’s national origin because the same co-worker had repeatedly called the plaintiff “Arab” for approximately one year), with Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 670 F.3d 644, 654 (5th Cir. Feb. 9, 2012) (declining to consider incidents of harassment not based on race where there was no evidence that the conduct was part of a pattern of race-based harassment). The Court finds that when evidence of Lane and Garafola’s race-based harassment of Bell is taken together with evidence of the non-race-based harassment, it is reasonable to conclude that the harassment complained of was severe or pervasive enough to affect a term, condition, or privilege of Bell’s employment.”
Bell v. Lane, 2014 WL 4925682, at *10 (M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2014) (Jackson, J.); see also Postell v. Lane, 2014 WL 4925665 (M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2014); Thompson v. Lane, 2014 WL 4925622 (M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2014).