to him by the company to assist in the harassment: He repeatedly reminded the victim that he could fire her if she refused his advances. Sparks, 830 F.2d at 1560; see also Steele, 867 F.2d at 1317 (limiting holding of Sparks to situations involving both quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment). No person threatened to fire or demote Faragher for refusing to accommodate Terry’s and Silverman’s harassing overtures. Moreover, the harassment cannot reasonably be viewed as conduct associated with Terry’s and Silverman’s status as agents of the City. See supra note 8. And, there is no evidence that either Terry or Silverman made any employment decisions based upon Faragher’s response to their sexual overtures. See Karibian v. Columbia University, 14 F.3d 773, 780 (2nd Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>). Because Terry and Silverman were not acting
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 a charge that alleged discrimination on the basis of sex did not support a complaint for hostile environment sexual harassment holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination holding that restatement  2191 is inapplicable to alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor was sexual harassment within the scope of antonis employment of course not holding employer liable for hostile environment sexual harassment where supervisor capitalized upon his authority over plaintiffs employment to force plaintiff to endure prolonged violent and demeaning sexual relationship