I need support with this Business Law question so I can learn better.

Read the Chesier case linked to your module. Do you think the court was correct in finding that the “severe and pervasive” element of the prima facie was not satisfied? Why or why not? Although the court did not have to address the “reasonable care” affirmative defense argued by the employer, did the employer establish that defense? Explain.

NOTE: The court was simply making ruling here on the issue of granting summary judgment and thus establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and therefore, the party moving for the summary judgment is entitled to a judgment in their favor as a matter of law (after considering the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party). However, they do discuss the legal standard and case law developments and precedents in the area of sexual harassment law under Title VII.