a reasonable duty on an employer who is aware of discrimination in the workplace to take reasonable steps to remedy it.” Vaughn, 459 N.W.2d at 634. Whether the employer met this duty is a question of fact and turns on “the gravity of the harm, the nature of the work environment, and the resources available to the employer.” Id. The first time Haskenhoff complained to management about Howes’s harassment, senior management promptly met with her and Howes. Howes was verbally confronted in a manner that led him and others to believe he faced termination. Howes apologized to Haskenhoff, and Haskenhoff, believing the harassment issue was resolved, asked that no further action be taken at that time. See Nurse “BE" v. Columbia Palms W. Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, 490 F.3d 1302, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>). Haskenhoff made no further complaints to
holding harassing supervisor acted within scope of employment but employer was not liable because of its quick and effective remediation holding that summary judgment was properly granted in an employers favor because the employer promptly took remedial action  reasonably calculated to end the harassment  once it knew or should have known about a harassing coemployees behavior citing kopp v samaritan health sys inc 13 f3d 264 269 8th cir1993 holding that employer liability could arise under the principles of restatement  2192 if 1 the employer was negligent or reckless or 2 the employee relied on the supervisors apparent authority or 3 the supervisor was aided in his harassment by the existence of the agency relationship holding that employers are vicariously liable for harassment of employees unless employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior emphasis supplied holding that if employee did not want the harassing behavior reported or acted upon then the employer would not have been placed on proper notice of the harassment alterations in original quoting olson v lowes home ctrs inc 130 fedappx 380 391 n21 11th cir 2005