and that male co-workers interfered with various aspects of her work. Although Boeing insists that the basis for such treatment was unrelated to her gender and instead was because her co-workers disliked her, “a counterweight is not enough to eliminate the need for a fact-finder to weigh the facts on both sides.” Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir.2008). In our view, the EEOC similarly raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Boeing adequately responded to Miles’ complaints of harassment. While Boeing terminated one offending male employee and disciplined another, a reasonable jury could find that these two employees were part of a much larger problem with respect to Miles’ treatment. See McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1118-19 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). There was evidence in the record that the
holding that the district court improperly limited the claims according to the preferred embodiment holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court holding that district court improperly considered the sufficiency of employers remedial measures on eventbyevent basis holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence