Cases3301610/2023

Claimant v Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust

11 July 2025Before Employment Judge S. MatthewsWatfordin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Harassment(sex)failed

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.

Harassment(sex)failed

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.

Direct Discrimination(sex)failed

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

Pemberton v Inwood [2018] ICR 1291Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd [2000] IRLR 151Land Registry v Grant [2011] ICR 1390Henderson v GMB [2015] IRLR 451Hartley v Foreign and Commonwealth Office Services (UKEAT/0033/15)Tees Esk Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam & Anor [2020] IRLR 495Blanc de Provence Ltd v Ha [2023] EAT 160Raj v Capita Business Services Ltd [2019] IRLR 1057Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal 2009 ICR 724

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.136Equality Act 2010 s.123Equality Act 2010 s.26

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