Can a non-harassing supervisor be held liable for failing to act on a complaint of sexual harassment?

"Sound policy reasons exist for treating such a nonharassing supervisor differently than a harassing supervisor. Individual supervisory employees [65 Cal.App.4th 1505] should be placed at risk of personal liability for personal conduct constituting sexual harassment, either directly as the actual harasser or indirectly as an aider and abettor of the harasser. Such individual supervisory employees should not be placed at risk of personal liability, however, for personnel management decisions which have been delegated to the supervisor by the employer, such as deciding whether to investigate or take action on a complaint of sexual harassment." (Fiol v. Doellstedt, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1327-1328, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 308.) The court also rejected seriatim the theories that the nonharassing supervisor could be held liable, based solely on inaction, as (1) an aider and abettor of the harasser (id., at pp. 1325-1326, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 308), (2) an aider and abettor of the employer (id., at p. 1326, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 308), or (3) an agent of the employer (id., at pp. 1328-1331, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 308).