Where an employer must respond to complaints of sexual harassment

question presented is: Where an employee complains to her employer about sexual harassment, does the employer fully satisfy its legal obligation under Title VII if it stops the harassment of that employee by the particular harasser complained of (the rule in the Eighth Circuit), or must the employer also take action to deter future harassment by other potential harassers (the standard in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits)? (2) Section 704(a) of Title VII forbids an employer to “discriminate against” an employee who opposes discrimination forbidden by section 703 of Title VII. Under the employer’s policy in this case, the court of appeals noted, “complaining of sexual harassment would directly lead to a net decrease in pay.” The question presented is: If under an employer’s policy a complaint of sexual harassment would “directly lead to a net decrease in pay” to the complaining employee, is that policy a per se violation of section 704(a), regardless of the employer’s motivation in adopting the policy? ii PARTIES The individual plaintiffs are Cathy Sellars, Claudia Lopez, and Leslie Fortune. They sue on behalf of themselves and a class of all women who were employed as team truck drivers by CRST Expedited, Inc. at any time from October 12, 2013 to March 30, 2017, and who were required by CRST to exit the truck in response to their complaints of sexual harassment. The defendant is CRST Expedited, Inc.