## Facts

- Sandra G. Bundy worked for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) starting in 1970 and advanced to vocational rehabilitation specialist.
- From about 1972 onward, multiple supervisors repeatedly subjected Bundy to sexual propositions, sexual questions, and other sexualized comments and conduct.
- After Bundy complained to a higher supervisor about the harassment, he made a threatening sexual comment and propositioned her as well.
- Following her complaints, Bundy received new negative criticisms about her performance that had not previously been made.
- The district court found sexual harassment of female employees at DCDC was widespread and treated as a normal condition of employment.
- The district court also found senior management failed to take Bundy’s complaints seriously and failed to investigate.
- Bundy pursued internal EEO processes and then filed a Title VII action in 1977 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and individual remedies including promotions and back pay.
- The district court denied relief, concluding sexual harassment was not actionable absent tangible job detriment and that Bundy had not proven promotions were denied or delayed because she rejected advances.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII’s bar on discrimination in the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” covers a sexually hostile work environment, even without proof of economic or other tangible job detriment.
2. Whether the district court applied the correct Title VII causation and burden-shifting standards to Bundy’s promotion-related claims and request for back pay.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the denial of relief on the hostile-environment claim and held that sexual harassment can violate Title VII even without tangible job detriment.
- The court held that “conditions of employment” include the psychological and emotional work environment and that a workplace pervaded by tolerated sexual harassment is a discriminatory condition of employment.
- The court relied in part on analogous hostile-environment reasoning in Title VII race cases and on administrative guidance treating sexual harassment as sex discrimination.
- The court reversed and remanded the promotion and back-pay issues, holding the district court misapplied Title VII’s evidentiary framework and burdens of proof.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII prohibits sex-based discrimination that alters the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” including by creating a hostile or offensive work environment.
- Sexual harassment may constitute actionable sex discrimination even if the plaintiff cannot show economic loss or other tangible employment injury.
- When a plaintiff establishes a prima facie showing of discriminatory or retaliatory adverse treatment, the employer must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to show pretext.
- An employer’s tolerance of pervasive workplace harassment, coupled with failure to investigate or respond to complaints, can support Title VII liability for hostile-environment discrimination.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that pervasive sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment is actionable sex discrimination under Title VII even without tangible job detriment, and it remanded for reconsideration of Bundy’s promotion and back-pay claims under the proper burden-shifting framework.


Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981)