act. Generally, an employer may be indirectly liable for hostile environment sexual harassment by a superi- or: (1) if the harassment occurs within the scope of the superior’s employment; (2) if the employer assigns performance of a non-delegable duty to a supervisor and an employee is injured because of the supervisor’s failure to carry out that duty; or (3) if there is an agency relationship which aids the supervisor’s ability or opportunity to harass his subordinate. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(1), (2)(e), (2)(d). Subsequent to Meritor, the circuits differ on the appropriate test to apply in a hostile work environment case involving sexual harassment of an employee by the employer’s supervisor. See, e.g., Kauffman v. Allied Signal, 970 F.2d 178, 184 (6th Cir.1992)(<HOLDING>); Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100, 104,
holding that restatement  2191 is inapplicable to alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor was sexual harassment within the scope of antonis employment of course not holding that illegal sexual harassment is an illegitimate corporate activity beyond the scope of the supervisors employment holding that an employer must remedy situation of sexual harassment 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 a defendants notice of prior harassment against victims other than the plaintiff can give rise to title ix liability so long as the defendant possessed enough knowledge of the harassment that it could reasonably have responded with remedial measures to address the kind of harassment upon which the plaintiffs legal claim is based