With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". part, after confirming that Milligan wished to proceed, Koropchak immediately warned Meyers and promptly investigated the matter, completing the investigation and taking remedial action about three weeks later. See Porter, 576 F.3d at 636. The record indisputably shows that neither Kinsel nor Koropchak stalled SIU’s handling of Milligan’s charge in any way. Also, the record contains no evidence that the investigation was biased against Milligan. Cf. Vance, 646 F.3d at 472. To the contrary, SIU vindicated Milligan’s complaint by determining that Meyers had violated its sexual harassment policy, by prohibiting him from contact with students, and, when Meyers refused to comply, by banning him from campus. Cf. EEOC v. Mgmt. Hospitality of Racine, Inc., 666 F.3d 422, 434-36 (7th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Second, Milligan contends that SIU’s response

A: holding that managements failure to investigate and report incidents of sexual harassment made the employers response unreasonable
B: holding that sexual harassment is a personal injury tort
C: holding that unless plaintiff establishes a nexus between a prior response and later harassment by others the later harassment is irrelevant to the adequacy of the prior response
D: holding various incidents of sexual harassment contributing to hostile work environment form part of same cause of action
A.