The EEOC guidelines recognize that an employer can be liable for the sexual harassment of its employees by non-employees: An employer may also be responsible for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace, where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing these eases, the Commission will consider the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility, which the employer may have with respect to the conduct of such non-employees. 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e) (1996). The prohibition set out in section 1604.11(e) applies to this case. Second, it is well established that Minnesota courts l 7 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 910
holding that evidentiary void as to motive for making and details of offensive comments doomed title vii claim holding it reasonable for employee to believe that title vii protected her from sexually offensive remarks made by nonemployee who was conducting mandatory training session holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy holding that the mere utterance of an  epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee is insufficient to implicate title vii holding that an attorneys letters constitute protected conduct under title vii