liable for hostile environment sexual harassment. In addition, Faragher argues that the harassment was so pervasive that the City should be charged with constructive knowledge of Terry’s and Silverman’s conduct. The City argues that it cannot be held liable under agency principles for Terry’s and Silverman’s conduct because there is no evidence which supports a finding either that Terry and Silverman were acting within the scope of their authority in harassing Faragher, or that they were aided in accomplishing the harassment by the existence of their agency relationships with the City. The City further contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the City had constructive notice of Terry’s and Silverman’s conduct. VI.Discus 1486 (3d Cir.1990)(<HOLDING>); and EEOC v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504,
holding that the plaintiff must prove that management level employees had actual or constructive knowledge about the existence of a sexually  hostile environment and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims holding plaintiff can prove foreseeability by showing the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the assailants violent nature holding school hable for sexual harassment by its employees only if the district knew or should have known and neghgently failed to take prompt effective remedial action holding that the proper inquiry is whether the individual defendant served in a supervisory position in which he exercised significant control over the plaintiffs hiring firing or conditions of employment and if not whether employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of a hostile work environment and took no prompt and adequate remedial steps