; (21) for example, in the context of harassment based on sex, those decisions have held that— (A) conduct need not be physical to create a hostile or abusive work environment, as in Billings v. Town of Grafton, 515 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2008); (B) an individual need not be the target of sexually demeaning conduct in order to experience unlawful harassment, as in Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic, 385 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2004); (C) power disparities, such as the young age of the individual harassed, compound the conduct’s harmful effects, as in EEOC v. R&R Ventures, 244 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2001); (D) gender-based epithets are equally as unlawful as overtly sexual conduct, as in Gallagher v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 567 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2009); and (E) a single incident can alter the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, as in Howley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2000); (22) similarly, in the context of harassment based on other protected characteristics, other courts have appropriately held that— (A) calling an individual an old man and pops could create an actionably hostile work environment based on age, as in Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc., 655 F.3d 435 (5th Cir. 2011); (B) repeatedly calling an individual with mental illness crazy and stating that the individual is a threat to security is sufficient to support a finding of a hostile work environment based on disability, as in Quiles-Quiles v. Henderson, 439 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006); and (C) a single incident of calling an African-American individual the n word is sufficient to support a finding of a hostile work environment based on race, as in Rodgers v. Western-Southern Life Insurance Co., 12 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1993)