day. 10 . See Williamson, 148 F.3d at 465; Waltman, 875 F.2d at 478; cf., e.g., Waltman, 875 F.2d at 478 (5th Cir.1989) (graffiti in several locations, announcements over public address system, multiple public instances of unwanted touching). But cf. Watts v. Kroger Co., 147 F.3d 460, 463-65 (5th Cir.1998) (in which all public comments were sex-neutral, while private comments were sexual). 11 . See Williamson, 148 F.3d at 466-67 (examining anti-harassment policies in determining employer's negligence); cf. Burlington, 118 S.Ct. at 2270 (noting affirmative defense of an effective grievance procedure in vicarious liability cases based on general title VII goal of preventing, rather than just remedying, harassment); Faragher, 118 S.Ct. at 2292 (same). 12 . Cf. Williamson, 148 F.3d at 466 (<HOLDING>). 13 . See Brady v. Fort Bend County, 145 F.3d
holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice holding that mailing a copy of a notice of appeal that was filed in the trial court to the city law director does not constitute filing the notice of appeal with the city board of zoning appeals holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding statute requiring parties in tax suit to take notice of subsequent pleadings was not unconstitutional when city failed to take such notice