Nevertheless, since the supervisory defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law in any event, the factual dispute was immaterial, see Antonellis, 80 F.3d at 608, and the error was harmless.


20
The defendant supervisors had warned Santiago to stay away from Sanchez even before the filing of the first formal complaint with the EEOO.  The EEOO investigated each and every complaint Sanchez filed against Santiago.  Following the EEOO investigation of the first formal complaint, Santiago was reprimanded and ordered not to go near Sanchez on PREPA property.  Even though Ms. Galanes urged Sanchez to drop the second complaint, she did so based on her perception that Santiago had not engaged in any further harassment after having been reprimanded and ordered to keep awayfrom Sanchez following the EEOO's disposition of the first complaint.  As a matter of fact, even though it was only after Sanchez filed her third complaint alleging yet further harassment by Santiago that the EEOO learned that the disciplinary action taken in response to the first complaint had failed to produce the anticipated deterrent effect, the EEOO nonetheless took prompt action on the second complaint.  EEOO Director Nieves met with Santiago and informed him of the filing of the second formal complaint.  Ms. Galanes met with Santiago thereafter, warning him of the consequences of any further harassment, and reminding him that he was not to approach Sanchez at the workplace.  After looking into the second Sanchez complaint, the EEOO determined that further action was