Boots Pharmacist Suspended for Sexual Misconduct Toward Junior Colleague Over Several Years

Date of Decision: January 19, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Inappropriate physical conduct towards a junior colleague over several years (e.g., kissing neck, slapping bottom, hugging, touching legs).
Sending overfamiliar and inappropriate WhatsApp messages to the colleague.
Making inappropriate comments with sexual innuendo.
Giving numerous personal gifts to the colleague.
Failing to act on repeated requests to stop the conduct.
Attempting to manage the complaint informally rather than escalating it appropriately.
Unprofessional conduct including pulling the colleague's ponytail and inappropriate teasing.

Outcome: Six-month suspension from the register

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 3 – Show respect for others
Standard 6 – Be honest and trustworthy

Case Summary

Allegations

The allegations against the registrant, a pharmacist and pharmacy manager, centered on a prolonged pattern of inappropriate and unprofessional behavior toward a junior colleague, referred to as Witness A. Spanning from 2013 to 2017, the allegations included a wide range of physical, verbal, and digital conduct that breached expected professional boundaries. The conduct included physical interactions such as hugging, touching her legs and shoulders, kissing her neck, slapping her bottom, and once picking her up by the waist and twirling her. The registrant also sent WhatsApp messages with affectionate terms like “hun” and “honey,” and made comments that included sexual innuendo, such as “I would love to look inside that hole” referring to a rip in Witness A’s trousers.

He also gave Witness A a series of personal gifts over several years, including handbags, a bouquet on Valentine’s Day, and various Christmas presents like a Ted Baker gift box and perfume. Some of these actions were admitted by the registrant. A critical part of the allegations was that this conduct was sexually motivated, particularly as it persisted despite repeated objections from Witness A.

Findings

The panel’s findings followed a detailed examination of both the facts and the registrant’s testimony. They found credible Witness A’s account of an increasingly familiar and inappropriate relationship. Despite inconsistencies in her recollections of frequency and detail—such as exaggerated claims about bottom-slapping—her core narrative was supported by corroborating witness testimony and contextual evidence, including WhatsApp exchanges and workplace accounts.

“The Committee has concluded that there is evidence before us that, on a plain reading of particular 8, an allegation of sexual harassment against the Registrant was made, and that he was aware that a ‘sexual harassment concern’ had been raised by Witness A.”

The Committee determined that the registrant’s behavior included sexual motivation, not in pursuit of a relationship per se but suggestive of a sexual charge within the dynamic. The WhatsApp messages, which contained sexually charged innuendo, demonstrated that the registrant derived some gratification from the interactions.

Notably, the registrant’s actions were not found to be motivated by predatory intent, but rather by a failure to maintain proper professional boundaries, exacerbated by his seniority and Witness A’s junior role. The registrant admitted to several actions and showed insight during the proceedings, acknowledging his failings.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel found the registrant’s fitness to practise impaired on the grounds of misconduct. The behaviors breached fundamental principles of professional conduct, notably showing respect (Standard 3) and maintaining honesty and trust (Standard 6). The Committee cited a serious breach of boundaries, particularly egregious given the registrant’s management role.

They considered the public interest: allowing a professional to remain unchallenged in light of sustained boundary violations would risk undermining confidence in the profession. While the registrant had shown developing insight and no prior misconduct was reported, the seriousness and duration of the behaviors necessitated a finding of current impairment.

Sanction

A six-month suspension was imposed. The panel determined this was sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, allow the registrant to continue developing insight, and uphold public confidence in the profession. The sanction accounted for the mitigating factors, such as the absence of misconduct beyond this case and the registrant’s positive testimonials from professional colleagues.

The Committee rejected the possibility of a warning as insufficiently serious for the misconduct and determined that a longer suspension or removal from the register would be disproportionate, given the circumstances.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Maintaining Professional Boundaries is Paramount: Even mutually informal relationships between colleagues can breach professional standards, particularly where a power imbalance exists.
Sexual Motivation Does Not Require Intent to Form a Relationship: Behavior that delivers even implicit sexual gratification can constitute sexual misconduct.
Gifts and Personal Attention Must Be Appropriate: Giving personalized and repeated gifts to junior colleagues can be perceived as inappropriate, especially when coupled with other boundary-crossing behaviors.
Failure to Escalate Complaints Appropriately is Misconduct: Managers must escalate any concerns or allegations, not attempt to address them informally.
Insight and Remediation Influence Sanction Severity: The registrant’s reflective statements, acceptance of responsibility, and absence of repeat behavior were instrumental in avoiding more severe sanctions.

This case serves as a critical reminder that pharmacy professionals, particularly those in managerial roles, must exercise heightened awareness of boundaries, communication tone, and conduct within professional settings. Ensuring a respectful and professional workplace is a shared responsibility, but leaders must set the tone.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.