the individuals involved. The question “presents difficult problems of proof and turns largely on credibility determinations committed to the trier of fact.” Id. Defendants next argue that, as a matter of law, Kinman was not discriminated against on the basis of her sex, because sexual harassment between members of the same gender is not actionable. We recently rejected this argument in Quick v. Donaldson Company, Inc., 90 F.3d 1372 (8th Cir.1996), in which we held male employees’ harassment of another male employee to be actionable under Title VII. We stated that “[t]he proper inquiry ... is whether ‘members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed.’ ” Id. at 887 F. Supp. 140, 143 (W.D.Texas 1995) (<HOLDING>) and Patricia H. v. Berkeley Unified Sch.
recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action holding school board liable for studentonstudent harassment if school officials knew of harassment and intentionally failed to take proper remedial action holding school district strictly hable for sexual harassment by its employees holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees holding school hable for sexual harassment by its employees only if the district knew or should have known and neghgently failed to take prompt effective remedial action