case, however, it is clear from Principal Grice's testimony that, following his conferences with Plaintiff and Ms. Lorenz, he thought the matter resolved. 7 . The record is silent as to what role, if any, Mr. Garner played in the investigation of Plaintiff's complaint by Investigator Fernandez or in the final determination made by Director Urrutia. Even more interesting to the Court, however, is the fact that, in his deposition taken July 28, 1998, Plaintiff states that an otherwise unidentified person by the name of "Goo r.1982) (recognizing that “an employer violates Title VII simply by creating or condoning an environment at the workplace which significantly and adversely affects an employee.”) (emphasis added). See also Fred v. Wackenhut Corp., 860 F.Supp. 1401, 1408 (D.Neb.1994) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 53 F.3d 335 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,
holding that a work environment did not contain pervasive harassment when the plaintiff made general allegations of frequent sexual slurs and the only specific incident cited involved a coworker grabbing the plaintiff holding that sexrelated statements by a coworker made to the plaintiff while she was at home and on suspension from work did not amount to improper conduct at the workplace and therefore did not constitute actionable sexual harassment holding that a plaintiff may not assert claims based on statements she did not view holding that defendants alleged defamatory statements that plaintiff made loans in exchange for sexual favors did not constitute outrageous conduct holding that sexual harassment need not take the form of sexual advances or other explicitly sexual conduct in order to be actionable under title vii