Vasilopulos and Tutman demonstrates that written reprimands neither altered nor modified Vasilopulos’s behavior. Consequently, Plaintiff argues that CBS’s response to Vasilopulos’s treatment of Tut-man was not appropriate because CBS had prior notice that a written warning to Vasi-lopulos was insufficient to prevent such behavior from recurring. Plaintiff, however, misconstrues the standard which requires prevention of likelihood of recurrence. First, CBS’s duty, the requirement of an appropriate response, only requires that the employer insure that the conduct will not likely be repeated between the offender and the plaintiff. The likelihood of recurrence need only be against the initial victim. See Saxton v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 10 F.3d 526, 535-36 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Thus, CBS did not need to insure that
holding that harassment of women working alongside plaintiff was relevant to question of creation of environment viola tive of title vii  although vinson was a sexual harassment case the principles underlying a hostile environment theory are equally applicable in sexual harassment and racial harassment cases 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 holding that the company administering a selfinsurance program for the department of transportation was an agent for the department and was therefore immune from suit holding that transferring the offender to a different department from the plaintiff was a sufficient safeguard against any recurrence of the harassment