and REMAND ED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . See Casiano v. AT&T Corp., 213 F.3d 278, 283-84 (5th Cir.2000) (outlining the differences between these two types of harassment and the methods of proof appropriate to each). 2 . This matter apparently is also one of first impression under Louisiana anti-discrimination law, for we have not been able to discover applicable post-Oncale Louisiana precedents that address the issue of proof of the harasser's homosexuality. 3 . The issue has also been addressed to an even more limited extent in three district court opinions, two of them unpublished and none of them very helpful in resolving the present case. See West v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 2002 WL 530984, at *2, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6123, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2002) (<HOLDING>); English v. Pohanka of Chantilly, Inc., 190
holding that samesex sexual harassment claims are not actionable under title vii holding that there was not adequate proof of homosexuality where a supervisor repeatedly made friendly gestures to a samesex subordinate such as bringing her food but did not engage in any hint of sexual innuendo holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment holding that a samesex partner could not recover loss of consortium damages under a massachusetts statute for injuries  suffered by her partner even though samesex marriage was unlawful at the time the underlying tort occurred holding that a supervisor cannot be held personally liable for the unconstitutional conduct of a subordinate based on vicarious liability