reason to conclude that Leal set that meeting with any intentions other than to address the conflict. While there may be circumstances which would counsel against a supervisor confronting wayward employees about their treatment of a co-employee and disclosing that co-employee’s complaint with specificity, this is not one of them. 2.Lack of assistance and false reports Next, Valderaz advances that his female coworkers refused to give him proper assistance and lodged false reports against him because he reported their harassing conduct. These incidents do not qualify as materially adverse because they were committed by ordinary employees and were not committed in furtherance of UMC’s business. See Hernandez, 670 F.3d at 657 (citing Long v. Eastfield Coll., 88 F.3d 300, 306 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>)). 3.Requirement to attend training Although
holding that an employees opinion of the efficacy of an employment decision standing alone cannot supplant the employers business judgment holding that  there is no vicarious liability on the part of the employer for torts committed by the employee solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employers business  quotation and other citations omitted holding that an employees ordinary negligence in failing to perform work in accordance with the employers standards rules or expectations is not misconduct gross or otherwise holding that the majority view is that employers are not liable for theft committed by employees holding that employers are not liable for conduct of ordinary employees because an ordinary employees conduct will normally be so unrelated to the employers business that it cannot be deemed in furtherance thereof