requirement The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed that “[o]nce an employee complains to her employer about sexual harassment by a coworker, the employer is on notice and must take proper remedial action to avoid liability under Title VII.” Hathaway v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1214, 1222 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Davis v. Tri-State Mack Distrib., Inc., 981 F.2d 340, 343 (8th Cir.1992)); Zirpel v. Toshiba Am. Information Sys., Inc., 111 F.Sd 80, 81 (8th Cir.1997) (finding an employer must take prompt remedial action after it knew or should have known of harassment). In addition to conducting an investigation, the employer must take “ ‘prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment.’” Hathaway, 132 F.3d at 1222 (citing Davis, 981 F.2d at 343); Zirpel, 111 F.3d at 81 (<HOLDING>). The employer cannot avoid liability by doing
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 cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong 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 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 recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action