Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM ORDER ERICKSON, United States Magistrate Judge. I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate judge pursuant to the parties’ consent, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(e), upon the Motion for Summary Judgment of Leisure Hills Health Center, Inc: (“Leisure Hills”), and St. Francis Health Service of Morris Inc. (“St.Francis”), and upon the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or for Summary Judgment, of the University Medical Center-Mesabi’s (“UMC-M”) on the Plaintiffs claims against it, and on the Cross-Claim of Leisure Hills. A Hearing on the Motions was conducted on March 5,1998, at which time, the Plaintiff appeared by Pamela M. Miller, Esq., Leisure Hills appeared by Joseph J. Roby, Jr., Esq., UMC-M appeared by Michael M. Fluegel, Esq., and no appearance was made by, or on behalf of, the Defendant John Parson (“Parson”). For reasons which follow, the Motions are granted, in part, and denied, in part. II. Factual and Procedural History This action arises from Parson’s three acts of sexual assault upon the Plaintiff, which occurred on May 22, 1996, at a nursing care facility in Hibbing, Minnesota. At that time, Parson was a co-employee of the Plaintiff, and she asserts claims against her employer — Leisure Hills — for sexual harassment, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 363.01 et seq., and under several common law theories. She has also sued UMC-M, Parson’s previous employer, under Minnesota common law, for its claimed role in failing to prevent the sexual assaults. Leisure Hills has filed a Cross-Claim against UMC-M, for common law indemnity, which is said to arise from a claimed violation of the common law duties it owes to Leisure Hills. A. Parson’s Tenure at UMC-M. From June of 1989 until August of 1995, Parson worked as a registered nurse at UMC-M, which is a hospital. On March 18, 1992, while on duty, Parson stroked and massaged T.M., a patient, in an objectionable, sexual manner. After learning of what happened, Captain James Mungai of the Salvation Army, who was T.M.’s advocate, reported the incident to the head nurse of medical surgical services, who relayed the information to Susan Jamar (“Jamar”). Deposition of Susan C. Jamar of 6/16/97 at 35, 46, Affidavit of William Mavity,. Ex. A. As the Patient Care Manager, Jamar was Parson’s supervisor. UMC-M investigated the patient complaint, but ultimately decided not to report the incident to either the police or to a social service agency, and elected not to discipline Parson. Deposition of John E. Berland at 22-29, Mavity Aff., Ex. D. Over the next two years, Parson sexually assaulted several female UMC-M employees, and one female Medical Center patient. Several of these incidents, which involved unwelcome groping, massaging, and fondling of the employees, and the patient, were reported to UMC-M, and to Jamar. Jamar Depo. of 6/16/27, Exs. 8-11, 13-28, 30; Mavity Aff., Exs. G and H; Affidavit of Sally Rikala, Mavity Aff., Ex. P. As a result, in August of 1995, UMC-M forced Parson to resign. Parson’s resignation was effected pursuant to an agreement between himself, UMC-M, and the Minnesota Nurses Association, which was Parson’s labor union. The Resignation Agreement recites that, because of the numerous accusations of sexual harassment and other misconduct, UMC-M believed that his termination was warranted, while Parson and his union believed that a discharge was “not necessarily warranted in these circumstances.” Resignation Agreement, Affidavit of Joseph Roby, Jr,, Ex. G. Under the terms of the Agreement, Parson voluntarily resigned, and he and his union agreed not to file any labor contract grievance relating to his employment at UMC-M. The Agreement also contained a confidentiality provision, which stated as follows: All parties agree to keep the matter confidential. Unless compelled to do so by subpoena or other lawful authority, no party shall discuss the facts of the matter with anyone, including other employers, not a party to this agreement. Notwithstanding the generality of this confidentiality provision, the Medical Center may discuss the facts of the matter with managers and with its attorney; Mr. Parson may discuss the facts of the matter with his spouse; and the Association may discuss the facts of the matter with its officers who have a need to know the facts .of the matter, as well as with its attorney. Resignation Agreement. Pursuant to the Agreement, UMC-M would provide Parson with a letter of reference, signed by Jean Kovacovich, now Jean Yelle (“Yelle”), who served as UMC-M’s Human Resources Manager, which stated as follows: The purpose of this letter is to verify employment of John C. Parson, R.N. He was employed from June 5, 1989 to August 24,1995 on the Medical-Surgical Unit. Mr. Parson has not been the subject of any disciplinary action. Reference Letter of 8/24/95, Mavity Aff., Ex. F. On the day that Parson left his employment at the Medical Center, Jamar told him that she would give him a “good reference.” Jamar Depo. of 8/29/97 at 18, Mavity Aff., Ex. B. Both Jamar and Yelle held a deep concern that Parson’s pattern of sexual misconduct would reoccur in his employment in other health care environments. Jamar Depo. of 6/16/97 at 50-51; Yelle Depo. at 73, 79, Mavity Aff., Ex. Q. B. Leisure Hills’ Retention of Parson. Leisure Hills is a nursing home that shares responsibility over patients with UMC-M. The two facilities are parties to a “transfer agreement,” that is designed to optimize the service of the individual patient’s needs by allowing nursing home patients to be transferred to UMC-M for hospital care, while hospital patients are sent to Leisure Hills if they are in need of nursing home care. After he left UMC-M, Parson applied to work as a nurse for Leisure Hills. Parson wrote on his Leisure Hills application that he had previously worked as a nurse for UMC-M. Alice Skaudis (“Skau-dis”), who is Leisure Hills’ Director of Nursing, interviewed Parson for the position of “Charge Nurse” in Unit 2 of the facility. A Charge Nurse is a registered nurse who is responsible for making clinical rounds with physicians, for overseeing the work of other nurses in the unit, and for making recommendations or giving advice concerning the hiring, disciplining, or the firing of other registered nurses. Deposition of Alice Skaudis at 32-33, Mavity Aff., Ex. C. Among the major duties and responsibilities, which are listed in the job description, are: to direct the day-to-day activities of the Staff Nurses; develop work assignments for Staff Nui’ses, delegate duties to the Staff Nurses; participate in determining the shift’s staffing requirements; prepare employee performance evaluations; and make recommendations to the Director of Nursing concerning the discipline of subordinate employees, including a dismissal or transfer. Charge Nurse Job Description, Miller Aff., Ex. D. Skaudis had noticed that Parson left his former nursing job in August of 1995, but she testified that she was not concerned by that fact, and did not wonder why he was no longer working at UMC-M. Id. at 36. By the end of the interview, which occurred in the latter part of December of 1995, Skaudis was impressed with Parson’s qualifications. Skaudis Depo. at 46, Second Affidavit of Michael M. Fluegel Ex. B. In fact, she told Parson that he would probably be hired, “pending reference checks ***.” Id. at 46-47. On Friday, January 5, 1996, Skaudis telephoned Parson and offered him the job. She asked him if he could start work on the following Monday, which was the eighth of January. Parson accepted the offer. Later in the day, Skaudis telephoned Jamar at UMC-M to find out about Parson’s employment history at the hospital. She has testified that she made the reference check after the employment offer and acceptance, because Parson’s employment was to begin with a training period, during which he would have probationary status, and could be dismissed without notice, for any reason, and without cause. Skaudis Depo. at 95, 138, Mavity Aff., Ex. C. Skaudis has testified that she did not attempt to contact Jamar, with any contemplation that Parson’s job offer could be revoked on account of anything that would be learned from Jamar, but because she wanted to know, from Parson’s former supervisor, “what kind of nurse he was, working at the hospital, underneath [Jamar’s] supervision,” and “how he functioned at the hospital.” Id. at 95. Jamar could not be reached on January 5, but returned Skaudis’ call on the following Monday afternoon, after Parson had begun his shift. When asked for an open-ended assessment of Parson, as a nurse, Jamar responded that Parson “was a very good clinical nurse,” with “good assessment skills,” and had “a good relationship with patients.” Id. at 65-66. Jamar also told Parson’s new employer that he had “some difficulty handling some employee issues.” Id. at 66. Jamar did not elaborate upon Parson’s difficulty with employee issues, and Skaudis did not ask for any further explanation of that comment. Id. at 68. Likewise, no explanation was offered, and none was requested, for Parson’s resignation from his employment at UMC-M. Id. at 66-68. UMC-M and its personnel never informed Leisure Hills about Parson’s history of on-the-job sexual misconduct. C. Parson’s Period of Employment at Leisure Hills, Assaults upon the Plaintiff, and Aftermath. On January 8, 1996, Parson began working as a Charge Nurse in Unit 2. When Parson was hired, the Plaintiff was already employed by Leisure Hills, as a Staff Float Nurse. She worked from noon until eight in the evening, splitting her shift between Units 2 and 3. Accordingly, during the time that the Plaintiff worked in Unit 2, she was under Parson’s authority. Parson, like the Plaintiff and all Leisure Hills employees, was given a copy of the Leisure Hills Objectionable Behavior Policy on the first day of work. See, Objectionable Behavior Policy, Affidavit of Betsy Moore, Ex. 2. The Plaintiff was aware of the Objectionable Behavior Policy, and knew the appropriate authorities to contact should she be subject to sexual harassment, or any other form misconduct. Indeed, in March of 1996, both Parson and the Plaintiff attended an objectionable behavior seminar, which instructed the staff concerning Leisure Hills’ policy against sexual harassment, the types of behavior that are considered harassment, and how to report such behavior. Moore Aff. ¶ 4. Pursuant to the Policy, Staff Nurses were to report sexual harassment to the Charge Nurse or, if the Charge Nurse was the perpetrator, then they were to report the behavior to the Director of Nursing. Deposition of Anne Grozdanich at 64, First Affidavit of Michael M. Fluegel, Ex. H. On May 22, 1996, at approximately 1:00 o’clock p.m., the Plaintiff was working in Unit 2, and was attempting to perform a procedure on a patient that is referred to as a “catheter change.” Experiencing difficulty with the procedure, and noticing that the patient was in pain, the Plaintiff called Parson, who was serving as her Charge Nurse, and who was in the hallway outside of the resident’s room. Parson entered the room, and positioned himself behind the Plaintiff, ostensibly to help her change the patient’s catheter. As the Plaintiff bent over the bed, she noticed that Parson started to breathe deeply through his nose, sniffing at her, while he put his left leg between hers. Grozdanich Depo. at 101-02, Miller Aff., Ex. F. He then placed his left hand on her buttocks, and caressed them, repeating: “It’s okay, Anne.” Id. at 102-05. The Plaintiff tried to avoid the contact but, because she had not completed the delicate catheterization procedure on the patient, she could not escape his grasp. Id. at 105-06. When the Plaintiff finished tending to the patient, Parson released her, and left the room. The Plaintiff soon spoke to another Staff Nurse, Theresa Harling (“Harling”), about Parson’s behavior. Having been told that Parson had touched the Plaintiff’s buttocks, Harling advised the Plaintiff to “ ‘stay away from him.’ ” Id. at 108-09. The Plaintiff did not immediately report Parson’s unwelcome physical contact to a superior, but she continued with her duties. Later that afternoon, the Plaintiff sat at the Unit 2 nurses’ desk in order to complete some patient charts. She was speaking with a resident’s family member, about the resident’s medical progress, when Parson approached, and sat down beside her. He slid closer, feigning interest in the contents of the resident’s chart, and he placed his hand on the Plaintiffs right inner thigh. He slid his hand up her thigh, and he touched her vagina. Id. at 117-19. Harling was present at the nurses’ station at the time, but she did not observe Parson touch the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff abruptly stood up from her chair. Moments later, another Staff Nurse, Steve Forness (“Forness”), entered the nurses’ station and told the Plaintiff that he had performed the clinical monitoring on one of the residents. Forness attempted to hand his monitoring notes to the Plaintiff, so that they might be transposed onto a chart, when Parson interjected: “that’s Anne’s job, she has to do the assessment and chart it herself.” Affidavit of Anne Marie Grozdanich ¶ 5, Miller Aff., Ex. G. The Plaintiff took some time to gather her monitoring equipment and brought it, as Parson had instructed, to the resident’s room. This occurred sometime between 2:15 and 2:30 o’clock p.m. The patient was near death, and a curtain was drawn around his bed. She went behind the curtain and saw that Parson was standing at the head of the bed. She walked along the railing to the foot, and tried to check the patient from there, perhaps in an attempt avoid physical proximity to Parson. Grozdanich Depo. at 143. Parson told the Plaintiff that she had to check the patient’s arms, and she moved up the side of the bed to complete her assessment. Parson then grabbed her hips from behind, and pressed his body into hers, forcing her up against the bed rails so that she could not move. Through their clothing, the Plaintiff could feel Parson’s erect penis pressed against her buttocks. Again, Parson told her: “It’s okay, Anne; it’s okay.” Grozdanich Depo. at 145; Grozdanich Aff. ¶ 6. The Plaintiff broke free of Parson’s grasp, ran down the hall, and hid in Unit 3’s medication room, crying. This third episode was the last time that Parson assaulted the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has testified that, before and during the three occasions of objectionable sexual touching, Parson never verbally threatened her, and never made any statements that would indicate to the Plaintiff that her job would be affected by her submission to his advances. Grozdanich Depo. at 167. According to the Plaintiffs testimony, she did not subjectively believe that a failure to submit to Parson’s touching would result in being fired, or would produce an unfavorable work schedule, nor did she believe that consenting to his conduct would result in any benefit to her employment relationship with Leisure Hills. Id. at 168. In Unit 3’s medication room, Jackie Cade, a co-worker, found the Plaintiff in tears, and suggested that she make a formal complaint about Parson’s sexual assault. Late that afternoon, during the Plaintiffs Unit 3 shift, which commenced at 3:00 o’clock p.m., the Plaintiff related what happened that day to Betsy Moore (“Moore”), who was the Staff Development Coordinator. Moore urged the Plaintiff to reduce her allegations to writing, and she scheduled a meeting for 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon, on the following day, to be attended by the Plaintiff, Skaudis, and Michelle Javorina, the Administrator at Leisure Hills. She told the Plaintiff to report back to work in Unit 3. By then, Parson’s Unit 2 shift had ended. On that same day, Moore contacted Javorina, Skaudis, and Assistant Administrator Walter Strasser (“Strasser”), to notify them of the Plaintiffs report. The following morning, before meeting with the Plaintiff, Skaudis and Javorina conferred privately about the Plaintiffs accusation. They compared the Plaintiffs allegations with the standards imposed by the Objectionable Behavior Policy, and decided to put together an investigative team to determine what had happened. Deposition of Michelle Javorina at 185, First Fluegel Aff, Ex. E. The planned meeting convened, as scheduled, on May 23, 1996, at 1:30 o’clock p.m. The Plaintiff, Moore, Skaudis, and Javorina were present. They discussed the Plaintiffs charges, and the Plaintiff was told that the administration would conduct a complete investigation. The Plaintiff told them that she was too terrified to work with Parson, and Skaudis responded that the Plaintiff should simply report to work at 2:30 o’clock p.m., after Parson’s shift, instead of at noon. Grozdanich Aff. ¶ 12. The Plaintiff was upset that her overall hours would be diminished because of Parson’s misconduct, id. but the number of the Plaintiffs hours of work returned to normal shortly thereafter. That afternoon, at 3:10 o’clock p.m., Moore, Skaudis, and Javorina met with Parson, whose shift had just ended. When confronted with the Plaintiffs accusations, Parson admitted only to having touched her on the shoulder once, and denied the Plaintiffs other allegations. Deposition of John Parson at 202-03, First Fluegel Aff., Ex. C. On May 24th, Javorina, Skaudis, and Moore interviewed Harling, to whom the Plaintiff had initially described Parson’s first assault, and who was present at the nurses’ station during the second encounter. Although she had not personally witnessed Parson touch the Plaintiff, she told the investigators that “something had definitely happened,” and that she knew that Parson had done something to the Plaintiff. Affidavit of Theresa Harling ¶ 4, Miller Aff., Ex. H. Apparently, although the facts are somewhat obscure, no other employees were interviewed by the investigating team. At the conclusion of the initial investigation, on May 24, 1996, the administration concluded that it did not have enough facts to determine, with certainty, whether the Plaintiffs allegations were true, and they settled upon Parson’s formal reprimand. Javorina Depo. at 201. Javorina informed the Plaintiff that the investigation was over and that, although the investigators believed her accusations to be credible, it was “[her] word against his,” as there were no direct witnesses to the alleged harassment. Grozdanich Depo. at 173. Leisure Hills did, however, take two remedial actions. First, Javo-rina met with Parson, and personally issued a formal letter of reprimand. The letter stated, in pertinent part: I investigated the alleged incident according to the official procedure established by the objectionable behavior policy. This included holding interviews with you, the complainant, and any potential witnesses. As a result of my investigation, I found the following: That there were no witnesses who actually was present during the alleged events. That the complainant honestly reported your actions as she perceived them. That the complainant found your actions to be unwelcome, offensive, and extremely disturbing making it impossible for her to continue performing her job. In view of these facts, I feel that your behavior was inappropriate and unprofessional. * * * * * » As a result, I am giving you this official reprimand, which will be placed in your personnel file. I sincerely hope that this will be the end of the matter, and that there will be no further need for action in the future. Letter from Javorina to Parson of 5/24/96, Javorina Aff., Ex. H. Second, the administration adjusted both Parson’s and the Plaintiffs work schedules so that they would never simultaneously work in the same Unit. That evening, the Plaintiff filed a criminal sexual assault complaint against Parson. On May 30, 1996, Officer Charles Bussey (“Bus-sey”) telephoned Assistant Administrator Strasser to inquire about the Plaintiffs complaint. Bussey asked whether Leisure Hills’ investigation determined that any criminal conduct occurred. Strasser replied that there was “perhaps” such conduct, but told the Officer to look at the letter of reprimand for a precise summation of the investigation results. Transcript of Taped Interview with Strasser, Hibbing Police Department Investigative File, Miller Aff., Ex. E. Javorina permitted Bussey to interview Parson, during his work shift on May 31, 1996, in the Leisure Hills conference room. Javorina Aff. ¶ 6. The Hibbing Police continued to investigate by interviewing co-workers. Although the Plaintiff never worked in the same Unit as Parson, from May 24, until Parson’s subsequent suspension from employment on July 3, 1996, the two did have some work-related contact. From May 24 to June 9, their working hours overlapped, during the hours from noon until 3:00 o’clock p.m. During this period, Parson sometimes walked through the Plaintiffs Unit on his way to lunch, which, on occasion, caused her to hide in residents’ rooms, or to lock herself in the medication room. Grozdanich Aff. ¶ 14. Additionally, Parson was present at the routine staff report meetings, which took place approximately twice weekly. Grozda-nich Depo. at 88. The Plaintiffs new Charge Nurse, Wendy Walker, gave the Plaintiff permission to be absent at these meetings, if she felt uncomfortable in Parson’s presence. Id. After the occurrences of May 22, 1996, Parson actually spoke to the Plaintiff on only one occasion. In June, as the Plaintiff was walking past Parson, who was standing at the nurses’ desk, he told her that it was time for the staff report meeting. Id. at 86-87. She did not respond. Bussey met with Javorina on July 2, 1996, and informed her that criminal charges had been brought against Parson, and that he had essentially confessed to assaulting the Plaintiff. Javorina Aff. ¶ 7. The following day, Administrator Javorina suspended Parson without pay, and the Plaintiff was immediately informed of Parson’s suspension. Grozdanich Depo. at 176-77. On August 5, 1996, Parson pleaded guilty to the fifth degree sexual assault of the Plaintiff. Leisure Hills terminated his employment on August 14, 1996. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff brings seven Counts against Leisure Hills: 1) quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment under Title VII; 2) sexual harassment under the MHRA; 3) battery; 4) assault; 5) negligent hiring/retention/supervision; 6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 7) negligent infliction of emotional distress. In addition, for Counts VIII, IX, and X, the Plaintiff contends that UMC-M is liable for: 1) negligence per se, in that it violated a statutory duty, see, Minnesota Statutes Section 626.557, to report the abuse of T.M., a vulnerable adult; 2) negligent misrepresentation/reeommendation; and 3) negligent failure to warn. The Defendants, except for Parson, move for Summary Judgment on each of these claims. In its Answer, Leisure Hills filed a Cross-Claim against UMC-M, praying for a Judgment that the Hospital be held responsible for any sum for which Leisure Hills is found liable to the Plaintiff. In the Cross-Claim, Leisure Hills charges that UMC-M negligently failed to warn it about Parson’s “dangerous propensities,” which proximately caused any damages that it may have to pay the Plaintiff. UMC-M moves for Judgment on the Pleadings, or alternatively, for Summary Judgment on the Cross-Claim of Leisure Hills. III. Discussion A. Standard of Review. Summary Judgment is not an acceptable means of resolving triable issues, nor is it a disfavored procedural shortcut when there are no issues which require the unique proficiencies of a Jury in weighing the evidence, and in rendering credibility determinations. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary Judgment is appropriate when we have viewed the facts, and the inferences drawn from those facts, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, and we have found no triable issue. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. State of South Dakota, 104 F.3d 1017, 1021 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 64, 139 L.Ed.2d 26 (1997). For these purposes, a disputed fact is “material” if it must inevitably be resolved and the resolution will determine the outcome of the case, while a dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable Jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. See, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Dodd v. Runyon, 114 F.3d 726, 729 (8th Cir.1997). As Rule 56(e) makes clear, once the moving party files a properly supported Motion, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute. In sustaining that burden, “an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this Rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Rule 56(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; see also, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Ivy v. Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 551 (8th Cir.1997); Thomas v. Runyon, 108 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir.1997). Moreover, the mov-ant is entitled to Summary Judgment where the non-moving party has failed “to establish the existence of an element essential to [her] case, and on which [she] will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548; see also, Greer v. Shoop, 141 F.3d 824, 826 (8th Cir.1998); Mayard v. Hopwood, 105 F.3d 1226, 1228 (8th Cir.1997). No genuine issue of fact exists in such a case because “a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party’s ease necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548; see also, Bell Lumber and Pole Co. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 60 F.3d 437, 441 (8th Cir.1995); McLaughlin v. Esselte Pendaflex Corp., 50 F.3d 507, 510 (8th Cir.1995); Settle v. Ross, 992 F.2d 162, 163 (8th Cir.1993). B. Legal Analysis. Leisure Hills and UMC-M both argue that there are no genuine issues of material fact, with respect to any of the issues involved in the Plaintiffs respective claims against them, and UMC-M also argues that Leisure Hills’ Cross-Claim must fail as a matter of law. Under the preceding standard, the Court considers each of the three Motions for Summary Judgment. 1. The Plaintiff’s Claims against Leisure Hills. The Plaintiff maintains that Leisure Hills is vicariously liable for Parson’s sexual assault, under both Federal and State law, and is liable for its own negligence in hiring, retaining, and supervising Parson. a. Sexual Harassment under Title VII. Here, the Plaintiff argues that Leisure Hills is liable for both quid pro quo threats, and for creating a hostile work environment which amounted to sexual harassment. Both are prohibited by Title VII, which states that it is “an unlawful employment practice for an employer *** to discriminate against any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s *** sex.” Titled U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). i. Standard of Review. Very recently, three months after oral argument on this matter, the Supreme Court issued fresh guidance in determining whether an employer is vicariously liable for the sexual harassment of a supervisor. In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998), and its companion case, Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998), the Court held that an employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee, under Title VII, for actionable sexual harassment by a supervisor with immediate' — or successively higher — authority over the employee. Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, supra at 2270; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, supra at 2292-93. If no tangible employment action is taken against the employee, such as a discharge, a demotion, or an undesirable work reassignment, “a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence,” which must be established by “two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, supra at 2270; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, supra at 2293. These holdings have displaced the previous dichotomy of employer liability, which had previously existed between quid pro quo and hostile working environment claims, as was recognized by the Eighth and other Circuits. Under the formerly accepted analysis, if a quid pro quo claim was established, the employer was subject to vicarious liability. See, Todd v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 138 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir.1998), pet. for cert. filed, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 33, — L.Ed.2d - (1998) (No. 98-155); Davis v. Sioux City, 115 F.3d 1365, 1367 (8th Cir.1997). A successful hostile environment claim, under the former interpretation of Title VII, would not automatically make the employer liable, unless the employer had engaged in some degree of culpable behavior, such as if the employer knew, or should have known, of the harassment, and failed to take appropriate remedial action. Id. at 1369. Now, with the vicarious liability principles announced in Faragher and Ellerth in place, the terms quid pro quo, and hostile environment, remain useful only for the “threshold question of whether a plaintiff can prove discrimination in violation of Title VII.” Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, supra at 2265. A prima facie case of quid pro quo sexual harassment will be established if a plaintiff shows that: 1) she was a member of a protected class; 2) she was subject to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors; 3) the harassment was based on sex; and 4) her submission to the unwelcome advances was an express or implied condition for receiving job benefits, or her refusal to submit resulted in a tangible job detriment. Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co., 49 F.3d 466, 473 (8th Cir.1995), citing Kauffman v. Allied Signal, Inc., 970 F.2d 178, 186 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1041, 113 S.Ct. 831, 121 L.Ed.2d 701 (1992). A number of Courts have held that, under the quid pro quo theory, an unfulfilled threat of an adverse employment action is insufficient to state a claim, as the harassment must result in a tangible job detriment if it is to be actionable. See, Webb v. Cardiothoracic Surgery Associates of North Texas, P.A., 139 F.3d 532, 539 (5th Cir.1998); Gallagher v. Delaney, 139 F.3d 338, 346 (2nd Cir.1998); Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391, 1396 (D.C.Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1011, 116 S.Ct. 569, 133 L.Ed.2d 493 (1995); Jones v. Clinton, 990 F.Supp. 657, 669 (E.D.Ark.1998); but see, Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America, 123 F.3d 490, 499 (7th Cir.1997) (en banc) (a “clear and unambiguous” quid pro quo threat that “clearly conditions concrete job benefits or detriments on compliance with sexual demands” can constitute an actionable claim “even if the threat remains unfulfilled,”), affd. on other grounds sub nom., Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, supra, and, cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2365, 141 L.Ed.2d 734 (1998); Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286, 1297 (3rd Cir.1997) (same). Because Title VII is not a “general civility code,” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 118 S.Ct. 998, 1002, 140 L.Ed.2d 201, (1998), sexual harassment must be “so ‘severe or pervasive’ as to ‘alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment’” before it can be said to create a hostile environment, under the Statute. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, supra at 2283 [alteration in original], quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). Therefore, a plaintiff claiming hostile environment harassment “ ‘must show both that the offending conduct created an objectively hostile environment and that she subjectively perceived her working conditions as abusive.’ ” Rorie v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 151 F.3d 757, 761 (8th Cir.1998), quoting Hathaway v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1214, 1221 (8th Cir.1997). In other words, there is a hostile work environment where “sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co., supra at 474, quoting Hall v. Gus Constr. Co., 842 F.2d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir.1988). To assess whether the harassment is sufficiently severe, or pervasive, to alter the conditions of employment, the Court must look to the totality of the circumstances. See, Nichols v. American Nat’l Ins. Co., 154 F.3d 875, 886 (8th Cir.1998), quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, supra at 2283; Stacks v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 27 F.3d 1316, 1327 (8th Cir.1994); Callanan v. Runyun, 903 F.Supp. 1285, 1298 (D.Minn.1994) (“When viewed in the context of the two-year period in which these events occurred, it may not be legitimately said that the objectionable conduct permeated the workplace or was so serious or pervasive as would draw a reasonable person to conclude that the work environment to which [the claimant] was exposed was hostile or abusive.”), aff'd, 75 F.3d 1293, 1296 (8th Cir.1996). In particular, the Court should consider “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). The Supreme Court has taken pains to emphasize that “the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position, considering ‘all the circumstances.’” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., supra at 1003, quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., supra at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367. Generally, for sexual harassment to be sufficiently severe, or pervasive, to create a hostile working environment, “more than a few isolated incidents are required.” Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 568, 573 (8th Cir.1997); see also, Montandon v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 116 F.3d 355, 358 (8th Cir.1997). ii. Legal Analysis. (A) Quid Pro Quo Harassment. The Plaintiffs quid pro quo theory is, by far, the weaker of the two Title VII claims. Leisure Hills does not contest the existence of the first three elements of quid pro quo harassment, and recognizes that she was a member of a protected class, and was subject to unwelcome sexual advances on the basis of her sex. Rather, Leisure Hills argues that there is no issue of material fact on the fourth element of her claim, as the Plaintiffs submission to Parson’s unwelcome advances was an not an express or implied condition for receiving any job benefits, nor did her refusal to submit to that conduct result in a tangible job detriment. There is no suggestion, and the Plaintiff does not argue, that her refusal to submit to Parson’s advances resulted in an actual tangible job detriment, in the form of some adverse employment action. Under the analysis of several Courts, that circumstance would constitute a critical failing in a quid pro quo claim. See, Webb v. Cardiothoracic Surgery Associates of North Texas, P.A., supra at 539; Gallagher v. Delaney, supra at 346; Gary v. Long, supra at 1396; Jones v. Clinton, supra at 669. We cannot overlook, however, that our Court of Appeals’ recitation of the fourth quid pro quo element is in the disjunctive; namely that a plaintiffs “submission to the unwelcome advances was an express or implied condition for receiving job benefits, or her refusal to submit resulted in a tangible job detriment.” Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co., supra at 473 [emphasis added]. Reading the word “or” to have grammatical effect, the fourth element of a prima facie case could be satisfied by unwelcome sexual advances combined with either a prospective threat of adverse employment consequences, or the occurrence of a tangible job detriment, as a result of the employee’s refusal to submit. Such a reading, although plausible, is not compatible with the Supreme Court’s recent discussion of the topic. The Ellerth decision strongly suggests that unwelcome sexual advances, which are accompanied by an unfulfilled threat of tangible, adverse employment consequences, should be analyzed only as a form of hostile work environment harassment. Of course, both Faragher and Ellerth hold that the existence of “tangible job consequences” are taken out of the pri-ma facie case of sexual harassment, and should be used to determine whether a defendant will be permitted to assert an affirmative defense. See, Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, supra at 2257 (“[n]o affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment”). Nevertheless, the Ellerth Court was presented with a Petition for Certiorari that posed the question of whether a quid pro quo claim could be stated under Title VII “where the plaintiff employee has neither submitted to the sexual advances of the alleged harasser nor suffered any tangible effects on the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment as a consequence of a refusal to submit to those advances?” Id. at 2264. While, as noted, the Court found the distinction between quid pro quo, and hostile environment, to be immaterial to the issue of the vicarious liability of an employer, it still observed that, “[b]ecause Ellerth’s claim involves only unfulfilled threats, it should be categorized as a hostile work environment claim which requires a showing of severe or pervasive conduct.” Id. at 2265, citing Oncale v. Sundowner Servs., Inc., supra at 1002-03. Although this statement may be properly regarded as dictum, because it was unnecessary to the Court’s decision, we believe that it is plainly reflective of the Court’s view that allegations, such as the Plaintiffs, should be directed toward the hostile environment analysis, and are not be treated under the framework of a quid pro quo claim. See, Ponticelli v. Zurich American Ins. Group, 16 F.Supp.2d 414, 428 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (because supervisor “did not carry out any of the alleged threats, *** claim must be characterized as a hostile work environment, and not a quid pro quo, claim”), citing Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, supra at 2265 Assuming, for the sake of argument, that an unfulfilled, implied threat could form the basis of a quid pro quo claim, there is no colorable evidence that such a threat was made against the Plaintiff. She asserts that Parson’s three sexual assaults, on May 22, 1996, carried with them the implied threat of a job detriment — namely her termination from employment — if she did not passively submit to his advances. The only words that Parson is said to have uttered, however, when he assertedly assaulted the Plaintiff, were contained in the repeated advisory: “It’s okay.” In her Memorandum, the Plaintiff argues that, taken in context, these words are terms of coercion, which implied that the Plaintiffs refusal to submit to Parson’s advances would result in retaliation and, perhaps, her dismissal. By contrast, in Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co., supra at 474, the supervisor made the statement: “I’ll get you for this,” after a quarrel with the plaintiff, who was his subordinate, and who had previously ended their consensual romantic relationship. The Court found this statement insufficient to link a threatened job detriment, and the supervisor’s asserted quid pro qiio demands. The Court reasoned: Rogers made this statement outside of work, as a result of a nonwork-related quarrel. The statement makes no reference to [the employer] or Cram’s job. There is no implication that he intended to “get her” for her personal rejection of him by interfering with her work at [the employer]. Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co., supra at 474. This Court is presented with a fairly similar set of circumstances. Here, Parson’s statements and actions were made in a work setting, while the Plaintiff was attending to her duties. However, there was no threat, explicit or implicit, carried in the words “it’s okay,” much less a threat to the terms and conditions of the Plaintiffs employment. The Plaintiffs deposition testimony indicates that she did not consider Parson’s statements to be verbal threats, and that her failure to immediately object to his advances was not prompted by a fear of adverse job consequences. Grozdanich Depo. at 167-68. Accordingly, irrespective of the existence of a tangible job detriment, the Plaintiff does not have a viable claim for quid pro quo sexual harassment. (B) Hostile Environment Harassment. (I) Severity and Pervasiveness. The Plaintiff claims that Parson’s three acts of sexual assault, which occurred over a two-hour period, were “so ‘severe or pervasive’ as to ‘alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, supra at 2283, quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, supra at 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399. In assessing the totality of the Plaintiffs circumstances, which includes the time before and after she endured Parson’s attacks, we keep in mind the general principle that, in order for acts of sexual harassment to precipitate a hostile environment, “more than a few isolated incidents are required.” Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra at 573; see also, Lam v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 122 F.3d 654, 656-57 (8th Cir.1997) (single exposure to offensive videotape not severe or pervasive enough to cause hostile environment). We are also mindful, however, of those exceptional cases in which a single episode of sexual harassment, such as a sexual assault, proved to be sufficient to state a claim of a hostile work environment sexual harassment. See, Todd v. Ortho Bio]tech, Inc., supra at 736 (single attempted rape at national sales meeting held sufficiently severe misconduct to be actionable); Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305 (2nd Cir.1995) (“even a single incident of sexual assault sufficiently alters the conditions of the victim’s employment and clearly creates an abusive work environment for purposes of Title VII liability”); Guess v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 913 F.2d 463, 464 (7th Cir.1990) (single incident where supervisor picked up plaintiff and forced her face against his crotch impliedly considered to create hostile environment); Fall v. Indiana University Bd. of Trustees, 12 F.Supp.2d 870, 879 (N.D.Ind.1998) (single assault, involving a groping of intimate areas, may create hostile environment); cf., Jones v. Clinton, supra at 675 (suggesting that a “sexual assault” may be deemed sufficient to state claim of hostile work environment), citing Crisonino v. New York City Housing Auth., 985 F.Supp. 385 (S.D.N.Y.1997). Indeed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated its position, that the forced touching of an intimate body part, akin to Parson’s assaults on the Plaintiff, creates a presumptively hostile working environment: The [EEOC] will presume that the unwelcome intentional touching of a charging party’s intimate body parts is sufficiently offensive to alter the conditions of her employment and constitute a violation of Title VII. More so than in the ease of verbal advances or remarks, a single unwelcome physical advance can seriously poison the victim’s working environment. If an employee’s supervisor sexually touches that employee, the [EEOC] normally would find a violation. EEOC Policy Guidance on Sexual Harassment, 8 Fair Employment Practice Manual (BNA) 405:6691 (March 19, 1990). In our view, the line of demarcation which separates “isolated incidents” of harassment from the purview of Title VII, must be drawn around actual sexual assaults, involving the unwanted touching or groping of a victim’s intimate body parts. A single sexual assault has a far greater potential to adversely alter the work environment, and with greater permanence, than would an offensive verbal remark, or a series of such remarks. Therefore, although the period of harassing conduct in this case was short-lived, the three sexual assaults were sufficiently offensive, and so dominantly repugnant to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the harassment was sufficiently severe to be actionable under a hostile environment theory. A reasonable Jury, in assessing the totality of the circumstances which surrounded the incidents involving the Plaintiff and Parson, could properly find that the Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment, in violation of Title VII. See, Howard v. Burns Bros., Inc., 149 F.3d 835, 840 (8th Cir.1998) (once there is evidence of improper conduct and subjective offense, determination of whether conduct rises to level required for hostile environment is largely in the Jury’s hands). (II) Parson’s Employer Status. Next, we must determine whether there is a material issue of fact concerning Parson’s supervisory status, vis á vis the Plaintiff. Under Faragher and Ellerth, if Parson is a supervisor, then Leisure Hills is vicariously liable for his discriminatory conduct, subject only to Leisure Hill’s two-part affirmative defense. Of course, if Parson was not a supervisor, and was not assisted in the accomplishment of the alleged hostile environment sexual harassment, by the presence of an agency relationship with his employer, then different considerations would apply. Although neither of these Supreme Court decisions speaks directly to this issue, the presumably still-valid law of this Circuit holds that, if Parson and the Plaintiff were merely co-employees, Leisure Hills is liable only if it “knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate action.” Quick v. Donaldson Co., 90 F.3d 1372, 1378 (8th Cir.1996), citing Burns v. McGregor Electronic Indus., Inc., 989 F.2d 959, 966 (8th Cir.1993). At the outset, we note that Leisure Hills’ insistence, that Parson was not a supervisor, was expressed as a defense to vicarious liability in the context of the Plaintiffs quid pro quo claim. Our rejection of the Plaintiffs quid pro quo theory, plus the Supreme Court’s new guidance, have exalted Parson’s asserted supervisory status into the forefront of the Plaintiffs hostile environment claim against Leisure Hills. Because Leisure Hills’ Motion was briefed, and argued, before the Supreme Court’s decisions in Faragher and Ellerth, we will consider its argument, that Parson was not a supervisor, to be directed at the critical distinction, in the hostile environment milieu, that has now been drawn by Faragher and Ellerth. In delineating an employer’s vicarious liability under Title VII, for the actions of its subordinates, Congress defined the term “employer” to include “agents.” In Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, supra at 72, 106 S.Ct. 2399, the Supreme Court held, without elaboration, that, in ascertaining employer liability, agency principles controlled. As noted, Faragher and Ellerth have since refined that proposition by deciding that, under the Federal common law of agency, an employer is vicariously liable for the hostile environment harassment of a “supervisor.” We would expect Leisure Hills to argue that the dispositive distinction between a “supervisor,” and a co-worker, should be drawn along the same contours that had been employed in the context of quid pro quo harassment. In this respect, Leisure Hills urges the Court to follow Highlander v. K.F.C. Nat’l Mgmt. Co., 805 F.2d 644, 648 (6th Cir.1986), which held that, for purposes of imputing sexual harassment liability to the employer, “supervisory employees” are those that “hav[e] plenary authority over hiring, advancement, dismissal and discipline under the theory of respondeat superior.” Along those lines, Leisure Hills also suggests that the Court employ the approach taken by Judge Coffey in his concurrence in Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America, supra, by borrowing from the definition of “supervisor” as employed in National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Judge Coffey reasoned: Our cases interpreting the statutory definition of “supervisor” in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(11) (“NLRA”), have examined the meaning of this term in some detail and recognized that “[sjupervision in the elementary sense of directing another’s work” does not suffice to make an employee a “supervisor.” Rather, a supervisor “must have authority over another’s job tenure and other conditions of employment.” The need to define “supervisor” with precision — and to provide some meaningful, common-sense limitations on who may be deemed a “supervisor” — is even more imperative in cases of sexual harassment because Title VII, unlike the NLRA, fails to provide a statutory definition of this term. Jansen v. Packaging Corp of America, supra at 527 (Coffey, J., concurring) quoting N.L.R.B. v. Res-Care, Inc., 705 F.2d 1461 (7th Cir.1983), and citing N.L.R.B. v. Winnebago Television Corp., 75 F.3d 1208, 1213 (7th Cir.1996) (“The test of a supervisor under § 152(11) is whether his judgment was dispositive in personnel decisions.”); but cf., N.L.R.B. v. Broyhill Co., 514 F.2d 655, 658 (8th Cir.1975) (under NLRA, foreman who doled out assignments, and made recommendations for promotion and discipline, properly considered “supervisor”); Caremore, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 129 F.3d 365, 370 (6th Cir.1997) (under NLRA, ability to recommend personnel actions held sufficient to confer supervisory status). Under the reasoning of Highlander, and that urged by the concurrence in Jansen, Parson would not meet the definition of “supervisor.” Although Parson was clearly authorized to manage and direct the Staff Nurses’ day-today activities, it is undisputed that he could not make significant personnel decisions such as hiring, firing, promotion, wage increase, or discipline. He was authorized and directed to evaluate the performance of Staff Nurses in order to make recommendations to the Director of Nursing, concerning the hiring, disciplining, and firing of Staff Nurses. Cf., Pfau v. Reed, 125 F.3d 927, 936-37 (5th Cir.1997) (first-line supervisor, who “could only recommend that employees receive awards or be subject to disciplinary action” was not employer’s agent within meaning of Title VII), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 32, 142 L.Ed.2d 24 (1998). There is a more indulgent line of case authority which, prior to Faragher and El-lerth, maintained that a low-level superior, who retained something less than plenary authority over hiring and firing, could be considered a “supervisor” such that an employer would be vicariously liable for his acts of sexual harassment. See, e.g., Canutillo Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Leija, 101 F.3d 393, 401-02 (5th Cir.1996) (the agent “ ‘need not have ultimate authority to hire or fire to qualify as an employer, as long as he or she has significant input into such personnel decisions.’ ”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2434, 138 L.Ed.2d 195 (1997), quoting Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100, 104 (4th Cir.1989), modified, 900 F.2d 27 (4th Cir.1990); Savino v. C.P. Hall Co., 988 F.Supp. 1171, 1185 (N.D.Ill.1997) (manager who had authority to only recommend termination, could be supervisor under Title VII, because apparent authority existed); Saville v. Houston County Healthcare Auth., 852 F.Supp. 1512, 1527 (M.D.Ala.1994) (“A supervisor need not be ‘high in the business structure’ or have ‘the authority to hire, fire, or promote’ be considered an agent” under Title VII), quoting Sims v. Montgomery County Comm’n, 766 F.Supp. 1052, 1069 (M.D.Ala.1990); see also, Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, supra at 76, 106 S.Ct. 2399 (Marshall, J., concurring) (“A supervisor’s responsibilities do not begin and end with the power to hire, fire, and discipline employees, or with the power to recommend such actions,” but contemplate “the day-to-day supervision of the work environment and with ensuring a safe, productive workplace.”). Upon a close reading of the Faragher decision, it is evident that the Supreme Court views the term “supervisor” as more expansive than as merely including those employees whose opinions are dispositive on hiring, firing, and promotion. The Faragher case involved a claim by a lifeguard, which was based upon the lewd remarks, and the uninvited offensive touching, that had been committed by two of her superiors. One of those superiors, the Chief of the Marine Safety Division, had authority over hiring and firing lifeguards — subject to the approval of higher management — and supervised all aspects of the lifeguards’ work. The other was a marine training captain, who was only responsible for making the lifeguards’ daily assignments, and for supervising their work and fitness training but, apparently, without the authority to hire and fire. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, supra at 2279-80, citing decision below, 864 F.Supp. 1552, 1563-64 (S.D.Fla.1994). In reversing the Court of Appeals, and remanding the case to the District Court to reinstate judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the Supreme Court considered both employees to be “supervisors,” and held the City liable for the hostile working environment that they had created. Id. at 2293. The Court’s reasoning was premised, at least in part, upon a recognition “that supervisors have special authority enhancing their capacity to harass, and that the employer can guard against their misbehavior more easily because their numbers are by definition fewer than the numbers of regular employees.” Id. at 2289-90. The Court also explained “that in implementing Title VII it makes sense to hold an employer vicariously hable for some tortious conduct of a supervisor made possible by abuse of his supervisory authority,” because the harasser’s “supervisory authority” over the victim prevents her from curbing the abusive conduct, and because “employers have a greater opportunity and incentive to screen [the supervisors], train them, and monitor their performance.” Id. at 2290-91. Although the Court did not offer a bright-line to distinguish between a “supervisor,” and a mere ministerial superior, the Court’s treatment of Faragher’s claim provides instructive guidance to this Court, in squarely presenting that question. Necessarily, in considering an employee, whose “supervisory” authority extended only to the management of his subordinates’ daily activities and physical fitness routines, to qualify as a “supervisor,” so as to impute Title VII to the “supervisor’s” employer, the Court did not consider the power to hire and fire to be dispositive. Indeed, the most senior supervisor, whose conduct was at issue in Faragher, as well as the supervisor in Ellerth, did not have plenary authority to render hiring and promotion decisions, but was required to secure the approval of higher management for those purposes. See, id. at 2279; Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, supra at 2262. The disutility of drawing any distinction between supervisors who manage their subordinates’ daily activities, but who can only recommend significant personnel decisions, and supervisors who have plenary authority over all such matters, underscores the Supreme Court’s holdings in Faragher and El-lerth. A supervisor who sexually harasses an employee, even though he holds no disposi-tive say over that employee’s employment status, is furthered in his capacity to harass by the power that he wields over the employee, see, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, supra at 2289-90; Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, supra at 2269, and the employer can and should guard against the supervisor’s abuse of the very authority that the employer vested in its managers. To draw the distinction, that is urged by Leisure Hills, would facilitate an employer to effectively insulate itself from the application of Faragher, and Ellerth, simply by directing all critical personnel decisions to be effected by a personnel department, which may have no direct, and only infrequent contact with the employee subject to the harassment. According to Leisure Hills, only the Director of Nursing, and those superior to her, should be considered “supervisors,” even though the routine exercise of managerial authority over Staff Nurses is carried out by the nurses immediate superiors. Such a limited construction of the term would do violence to the rationale in Faragher, for neither of the harassers there held unlimited authority over the subordinate’s personnel decisions, but simply held “‘virtually unchecked authority’ ” over their day-to-day activities which, when abused, subjected the employer to Title VII liability. Here, it is undisputed that Parson was the Plaintiffs first line supervisor, while she worked in his Unit, and he maintained the authority to control her daily activities, as well as to recommend that she be subject to a full range of employee discipline. Further, there is evidence in the Record, which we take as true for these purposes, that Parson actually used his supervisory status to allow him to harass the Plaintiff by sending her to a resident’s room, so as to be isolated from others, in order that he might physically assault her there. In our view, the evidence is sufficient to support a finding, by a reasonable Juror, that Parson acted as the Plaintiffs supervisor, such that Leisure Hills could be held liable for his harassment of her. (Ill) Affirmative Defense. In order to honor the concept of stare decisis, and to preserve Meritor’s holding that an employer is not “automatically” liable for the acts of harassment of a supervisor, the Supreme Court created an affirmative defense which could shield the employer from such liability. If no “tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment,” is taken, an employer can avoid liability by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence: (a) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior; and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities offered by the employer, or otherwise failed to avoid harm. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, supra at 2292-93; Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, supra at 2270. Because these decisions post-dated the Motions for Summary Judgment, Leisure Hills has neither pleaded, nor argued, this potential affirmative defense. In the interest of fairness, therefore, we will allow the Defendants to inteipose an affirmative defense to liability, as formulated by the Supreme Court. See, Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In any event, the present state of the Record before us does not establish that Leisure Hills is entitled to Summary Judgment, on the Plaintiffs Title YII claims, by virtue of the newly promulgated affirmative defense. As a preliminary matter, the Plaintiffs evidence does not support a conclusion that she was subjected to a “tangible employment action” such as would preclude the assertion of the affirmative defense. The Supreme Court’s holding was clear, that a “tangible employm