Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the agency's January 5, 2009 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, complainant was employed as a Plumber, WG-4206-9, at the Agency's Department of Public Works, Maintenance Division in Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. On September 19, 2007, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint alleging that he was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American), color (black), and in reprisal for prior protected activity, mainly by his first-level supervisor (Caucasian) ("S1"), when: a. on June 25, 2007, he was threatened with disciplinary action after following directions that were previously stated; b. on June 26, 2007, he was sent alone to accomplish a task that required two employees, and co-workers in the shop were instructed not to assist him; c. on June 26, 2007, he was made to perform the work of another co-worker, while that co-worker was present; d. on June 27, 2007, he was asked to sign a blank assessment form; e. on June 27, 2007, he was asked to work over six feet off the ground with no additional personnel present for safety reasons, and personnel were instructed by S1 not to assist him with a potentially unsafe task; f. on June 28, 2007, he was asked to sign a letter describing an event about which he knew nothing; On September 19, 2007, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint alleging that he was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American), color (black), and in reprisal for prior protected activity, mainly by his first-level supervisor (Caucasian) ("S1"), when: a. on June 25, 2007, he was threatened with disciplinary action after following directions that were previously stated; b. on June 26, 2007, he was sent alone to accomplish a task that required two employees, and co-workers in the shop were instructed not to assist him; c. on June 26, 2007, he was made to perform the work of another co-worker, while that co-worker was present; d. on June 27, 2007, he was asked to sign a blank assessment form; e. on June 27, 2007, he was asked to work over six feet off the ground with no additional personnel present for safety reasons, and personnel were instructed by S1 not to assist him with a potentially unsafe task; f. on June 28, 2007, he was asked to sign a letter describing an event about which he knew nothing; g. on June 28, 2007, he was reprimanded for not answering his radio, while S1 was aware that Complainant's radio was only working intermittently; h. on August 13, 2007, he was falsely accused of flooding an entire building and was subjected to verbal abuse; On September 19, 2007, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint alleging that he was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American), color (black), and in reprisal for prior protected activity, mainly by his first-level supervisor (Caucasian) ("S1"), when: a. on June 25, 2007, he was threatened with disciplinary action after following directions that were previously stated; b. on June 26, 2007, he was sent alone to accomplish a task that required two employees, and co-workers in the shop were instructed not to assist him; c. on June 26, 2007, he was made to perform the work of another co-worker, while that co-worker was present; d. on June 27, 2007, he was asked to sign a blank assessment form; e. on June 27, 2007, he was asked to work over six feet off the ground with no additional personnel present for safety reasons, and personnel were instructed by S1 not to assist him with a potentially unsafe task; f. on June 28, 2007, he was asked to sign a letter describing an event about which he knew nothing; g. on June 28, 2007, he was reprimanded for not answering his radio, while S1 was aware that Complainant's radio was only working intermittently; h. on August 13, 2007, he was falsely accused of flooding an entire building and was subjected to verbal abuse; i. on August 13 and 15, 2007, he became aware that S1 was attempting to coerce others to magnify minor incidents and make negative statements against Complainant when, in two separate meetings, Complainant's performance was falsely presented as poor and options were discussed for management to take corrective action, including an option of coercing him to resign; j. on August 15, 2007, he was the subject of false Interactive Customer Evaluation (ICE) reports concerning his performance; k. on August 15, 2007, the work he had previously performed was deliberately and maliciously sabotaged by a co-worker, by the direct instruction and orchestration of S1; l. on August 16, 22 and 23, 2007, he was verbally harassed by S1 while performing his duties; m. on August 20, 22 and 23, 2007, he was verbally abused by S1; n. on August 20 and 21, 2007, he was the subject of false work tickets for jobs that were created for him to perform; o. on August 22, 2007, he was subjected to a created condition that caused physical harm to him; p. on October 19, 2007, he was taunted and teased by S1's laughing and mocking directed toward him; q. on January 15, 2008, [named co-worker (CW1)] allegedly harassed him by wrongly trying to make him shake his hand and by making inappropriate comments to him that he should forget about pursuing the incidents of harassment and "let bygones be bygones;" and r. on January 15, 2008, he was sent to work on a faucet unit, even though his supervisor knew the job that had been abandoned by another plumber because the unit was actually incapable of being fixed without total replacement.1 As remedies for the harassment, Complainant requested reassignment from his position under S1's supervision; have management direct S1 to attend anger management classes; and a payment in the amount of $300,000 for pain and suffering. At the conclusion of the investigation, Complainant was provided with a copy of the investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with complainant's request, the agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). In its January 5, 2009 final decision, the Agency found that the weight of the evidence supported Complainant's claim that he had been subjected to ongoing harassment based on his race and color. In addition to the numerous incidents cited by Complainant, evidence was also uncovered during the investigation, that racial epithets were used in the workplace. A number of Complainant's coworkers submitted affidavits indicating S1 had made racially charged comments on different occasions. For example, S1 was reported to have said (outside of Complainant's presence) that, "he didn't have anything against Blacks, there were a few niggers he liked."S1 admitted that he and other employees had used the word "nigger" in the past before he became a supervisor, but denied this language was directed at Complainant and asserted no one was offended at the time. Although finding that Complainant's claim of racial harassment was supported, the Agency found that it had no liability for the harassment committed by S1 because management took prompt remedial action when Complainant's allegations were bought to management's attention. Specifically, the Agency asserted that it immediately initiated an investigation and reassigned Complainant to a different shop away from the supervision of S1; following the findings of the investigation, it removed S1 from his supervisory position and directed him to attend Human Resources training which encompasses EEO rights; and it posted several policies in the workplace addressing harassment and behavior in the workplace, and advised employees of the avenues of redress if they felt subjected to or observed harassment in the workplace. The Agency asserted that, by these actions, it satisfied its duty to investigate the allegations promptly and thoroughly by putting an end to the harassment, and ensuring that the harassment would not recur. The Agency stated that S1 did not have any further contact with Complainant and there have been no further incidents of harassment. Therefore, the Agency determined that it was not liable for S1's discriminatory harassment and was not responsible for providing Complainant with any remedial relief. The instant appeal followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission determines that, in the instant appeal, the Agency's finding that Complainant was subjected to ongoing harassment by S1 on the basis of his race and color is not at issue. The instant appeal focuses, instead, on the Agency's determination that it was not liable for the harassment and, therefore, was not responsible for providing Complainant with any remedial relief. In the context of supervisory liability, employers are subject to vicarious liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). The standard of liability set forth in these decisions is premised on two principles: (1) an employer is responsible for the acts of its supervisors, and (2) employers should be encouraged to avoid or limit the harm from harassment. In order to accommodate these principles, the Court held that an employer is always liable for a supervisor's harassment if it culminates in a tangible employment action. Where, as in this case, harassment does not result in a tangible employment action, the employer may prove an affirmative defense comprised of two elements: (1) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing behavior, and (2) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. Faragher, id.; Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, Id. The record reflects that Complainant's second-level supervisor, S2, with Complainant's consent, immediately moved Complainant into another shop while he conducted an investigation of the harassment allegations; and as a result of the investigation, S1 was removed from his supervisory position. However, on appeal, Complainant contends that S1 continued to harass him by repeatedly calling in plumbing work orders for Complainant to his new shop (the industrial maintenance shop) and by repeatedly "taunting" him. Complainant asserted he complained about the continuing harassment to S2, who said he would have "a talk" with S1. However, the harassment continued. Complainant also alleged that he reported to S2 that he was taunted and harassed by a several coworkers who were friends with S1. Complainant alleges that after S2 retired, his replacement attempted to force Complainant back into the plumbing shop, where S1 continued to work, until the union intervened. Finally, Complainant argues that the hostile work environment and its aftermath "have created extreme painful results in my physical conditions. I now suffer from extreme high blood pressure and hypertension due to extreme due to extreme stressful conditions I encountered at Ft. Campbell."Complainant provided medical documentation and a statement from his wife that suggests links between the harassment and several medical conditions, including anxiety, depression and insomnia. We find, given the present record, that the Agency's actions upon learning of the discriminatory harassment constituted an insufficient attempt to remedy the situation. The record reflects that although Complainant was removed from S1's supervision, S1 and his friends have continued to harass Complainant. Complainant has alleged that he reported this harassment to management but it has not stopped. Moreover, Complainant has produced evidence of physical and emotional harm he has suffered as a result of the continuing harassment. The Agency is under an obligation to do "whatever is necessary" to end harassment, to make a victim whole, and to prevent the misconduct from recurring. See Enforcement Guidance; Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (June 18, 1999) (stating that "remedial measures should be designed to stop the harassment, correct its effects on the employee, and ensure that the harassment does not recur"). Taking only a stop-gap remedial action does not absolve the Agency of liability where that action is ineffective. SeeLogsdon v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40120 (February 28, 2006). Accordingly, as the record suggests that the Agency's actions have neither corrected the effects of the discriminatory harassment on Complainant nor stopped it from recurring, the Agency has not satisfied the element of its affirmative defense, and we find that it is liable for the harassment of complaint.