sexual harassment. Three authorities support our determination that the MHRA covers non-employee sexual harassment: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, other jurisdictions’ comparable decisions, and the MHRA’s broad remedial intent to remove discrimination from the workplace. First, the United States Supreme Court has approved the specific use of EEOC guidelines in sexual harassment eases. See Mentor Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2404, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (guidelines represent informed judgment; courts and litigants may properly resort to them for guidance) th Cir.1982) (recognizing that non-employee strangers may cause sexually hostile working environment); Jarman v. City of Northlake, 950 F.Supp. 1375, 1377-80 (N.D.Ill.1997) (<HOLDING>); Powell v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp., 841 F.Supp.
holding employee had cause of action against her employers when nonemployee harassed her and employers failed to take corrective action holding that although incorrect drug report was detrimental to employee employee had no claim against hospital because the report was not intended to primarily or directly benefit the employee holding employer may be hable when its employee is sexually harassed by employers patrons and employer either ratifies or acquiesces in harassment by not taking immediate andor corrective action holding employee had cause of action against city when nonemployee alderman sexually harassed employee holding county employee with unenforceable contract was atwill employee