alleged harassment in an attempt to remedy DeLutiis’ objectionable behavior and prevent any further harassment. App at. 21. The Court also took into consideration the fact that Andreoli “affirmatively plaee[d] herself in a position of close contact with her alleged harasser” by applying for a job that required her to work the same shift as DeLutiis. App. at 23. We have two problems with this analysis. First, the District Court placed the burden on Andreoli’s employer to establish that it was not vicariously liable for DeLu-tiis’ conduct by proving that it took prompt and adequate remedial action and that An-dredli failed to take advantage of the preventive opportunities offered to her. See Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998) (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, because De-Lutiis was
holding that employer has affirmative defense to vicarious liability for supervisors conduct if 1 employer acted promptly and reasonably to prevent and correct the alleged harassment and 2 employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive opportunities offered to her recognizing affirmative defense to supervisor harassment employer must show that it had sufficient antiharassment policy and that plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise 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 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 a constructive discharge would constitute a tangible employment action and prevent the employer from utilizing the affirmative defense to vicarious employer liability for sexual harassment