Claimant v Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the incident on 29 March 2022 did not occur as alleged. The claimant failed to refer to it in her formal complaint and did not describe it coherently. Even if it had occurred, it was not related to sex and was not conduct of a sexual nature, occurring in the context of a discussion about timesheets. The claim was also out of time.
The tribunal found that the incident in April/May 2022 did not occur as alleged. The claimant was unable to identify the exact date, and it was implausible she would not have complained at the time if the alleged conduct had occurred. The claimant failed to establish the incident took place. The claim was also out of time.
The tribunal accepted that on 17 January 2023, Helen Richards placed her hands on the claimant's shoulders and touched her forehead to the claimant's forehead. However, the tribunal found this was not related to sex or conduct of a sexual nature. The motivation was that Helen Richards was pleased to see the claimant on a busy shift. Although unwanted, it was not reasonable for the conduct to have the effect alleged. The gesture was a short-lived event which cannot reasonably have been expected to cause offence in a caring profession such as nursing.
Facts
The claimant, an agency healthcare worker, alleged three incidents of harassment by a ward sister, Helen Richards: touching her chest and shoulder by an elevator (March 2022), rubbing hands on her body (April/May 2022), and placing hands on shoulders and touching foreheads (January 2023). The respondent admitted the January 2023 incident but denied it was sexual or sex-related. Helen Richards explained the January gesture was relief at the claimant arriving on a busy shift, witnessed by a receptionist. The claimant believed it was voodoo practice and accused Helen Richards of being a lesbian.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the first two incidents were not established on the evidence—the claimant did not report them at the time and her accounts were not credible. The January 2023 incident was admitted but the tribunal found it was not related to sex or of a sexual nature; it was a short-lived gesture of gratitude in a caring profession. Although unwanted, it was not reasonable for it to have the alleged effect.
Practical note
Unwanted physical contact in the workplace will not constitute harassment related to sex or sexual harassment unless there is an identifiable feature linking it to the protected characteristic; context, motive, and reasonableness of perception are critical.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3301610/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Healthcare Support Worker
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No