or what he reasonably perceived to be a hostile work environment. Even assuming, arguendo, that a hostile work environment existed or it was reasonable for Tawwaab to believe there was one, there is no basis for attributing Walsh’s statement to VLS. “To satisfy the first element in a prima facie case of retaliation, [plaintiff] must show sufficient facts to impute the actions of [a customer] to her employer.” Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 107 F.3d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1997). Liability may be imposed on an employer for the actions of a customer or an employee where (1) “an employer should reasonably anticipate that a plaintiff may become a victim, but fails to take action reasonably calculated to prevent the harassment,” Hylind v. Xerox Corp., 380 F.Supp.2d 705, 717 (D.Md.2005) (<HOLDING>); or (2) an employer “had actual or
holding an employer liable for the actions of a customer where the employer had knowledge that a male customer had previously harassed female employees other than the plaintiff and should have anticipated that the plaintiff too would become a victim holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability holding that murder committed by customer was not foreseeable result of excessive sale of alcohol to customer holding that an insurance company may have assumed a duty to defend a customer against a tort claim falling outside the scope of the customers insurance contract where a claims person  told the customer over the telephone that the insurer would take care of it and the insurer shortly thereafter hired a lawyer to represent the customer holding that the plaintiff had a right of privacy in the contents of a settlement agreement that stated that the plaintiff had sued his employer for failing to hire him because he was a single gay male and because his employer suspected that he had aids