they did not rise to the level (e.g., sexual assault or sexual quid pro quo) that would have required SIU to take drastic action, such as a same-day investigation and termination of Meyers. See Smith v. Sheahan, 189 F.3d 529, 535 (7th Cir.1999); McKenzie v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 92 F.3d 473, 481 (7th Cir.1996); Baskerville, 50 F.3d at 432. Given the facts and circumstances before it, SIU’s response was appropriately prompt and entirely reasonable. Kraft was the first university official to learn of the harassment. He offered to accompany Milligan to talk to other university officials about the incident, but Milligan declined. Kraft’s decision not to pursue the matter was reasonable in light of Milligan’s declination. See Jackson v. Cnty. of Racine, 474 F.3d 493, 501-02 (7th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Kin sel was the next university official to
holding that an employer must remedy situation of sexual harassment holding that illegal sexual harassment is an illegitimate corporate activity beyond the scope of the supervisors employment holding that supervisors questions made two and three times a week about plaintiffs sexual activities constituted actionable sexual harassment holding that the plaintiff must establish that a supervisors harassment was within the scope of his employment and that the employer failed to respond adequately and effectively when it learned of the harassment holding that an employer did not act unreasonably where it had notice of a supervisors sexual harassment but took no action for three months because no victim wished to lodge a formal complaint