care to prevent and correct promptly any ... harassing behavior,” and (2) “that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Id. at 744 n.2 (quoting Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807, 118 S.Ct. at 2293). HES argues the jury should have been instructed on vicarious liability, including the Faragher-Ellerth defense, because vicarious liability replaced the negligence standard for supervisor harassment. Haskenhoff argues the vicarious liability standard did not replace, but rather supplemented, the direct negligence standard. Because the ICRA hostile-work-environment, claim is modeled after its Title VII counterpart, we consider federal law instructive. Boyle, 710 N.W.2d at 749-50 (<HOLDING>); see also DeBoom, 772 N.W.2d at 7 (“When
recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap recognizing that title vii hostileworkenvironment claim has the same elements as icra claim holding that title vii claim was subject to compulsory arbitration holding that the elements of a hostile environment claim under title vii equally apply under title ix