## Facts

- Barbara J. Henson worked as a police-dispatcher in Dundee, Florida, from January 1975 to January 1977 in a small police department led by Chief John Sellgren.
- Henson alleged that Sellgren subjected her and a female coworker to repeated, unwelcome sexual comments, inquiries, vulgarities, and requests for sexual relations over an extended period.
- Henson testified that she complained to the city manager in 1976, but the City did not take action to stop Sellgren’s conduct.
- Henson received a two-day suspension for violating a workplace rule and later resigned, claiming the harassment and workplace pressure made her resignation effectively involuntary.
- Henson also sought admission to a police academy to become a sworn officer and alleged Sellgren conditioned assistance for her admission on sexual compliance.
- During Henson’s employment, two male dispatchers attended the academy while Henson did not; the city manager testified Henson was qualified and would have been approved if her interest had been communicated.
- After an EEOC charge and right-to-sue letter, Henson brought a Title VII action against the City alleging hostile-environment harassment, constructive discharge, and sex-based denial of academy training.

## Issues

1. Whether sexual harassment that creates a hostile or offensive work environment violates Title VII absent proof of a tangible job detriment.
2. Whether the evidence required a finding that Henson’s resignation constituted constructive discharge.
3. Whether the denial of police-academy training was actionable under Title VII as quid pro quo sexual harassment and/or sex discrimination, and whether the district court applied proper standards and findings.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit held that hostile-work-environment sexual harassment can violate Title VII even without a tangible job detriment.
- The court reversed the judgment against Henson on the hostile-environment claim and remanded for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.
- The court affirmed the judgment for the City on the constructive discharge claim, deferring to the district court’s factual findings and credibility determinations.
- The court reversed and remanded on the police-academy/training claim, concluding the district court employed erroneous legal and/or factual analysis in assessing whether denial of the benefit was linked to refusal of sexual advances.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” include working conditions affecting psychological well-being; actionable harassment need not culminate in discharge, demotion, or other tangible economic harm.
- Hostile-environment sexual harassment is actionable when unwelcome conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, assessed under the totality of the circumstances.
- Constructive discharge occurs when an employee resigns to escape intolerable, illegal discriminatory conditions; the test is objective—whether a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign.
- Employer liability may attach for harassment by supervisory personnel where the employer has actual or constructive notice and fails to take adequate corrective action.
- Quid pro quo harassment may be shown where job benefits or opportunities are conditioned on submission to unwelcome sexual demands; denial of such benefits can constitute sex discrimination under Title VII.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit rejected a “tangible job detriment” requirement for hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII, remanding for proper adjudication of the hostile-environment and academy-training claims while affirming the rejection of constructive discharge based on the trial court’s factual findings.


Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)