Pharmacist Suspended for Three Months for Unsolicited Penis Pictures and Sexual Misconduct Towards Pharmacy Colleague

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacist after he was accused of sexual misconduct towards a female pharmacy colleague while working as a locum pharmacist at Hollowood Chemists Ltd in Bolton.

On 12 July 2021, he:

1. Showed his female colleague an indecent image of a penis on his phone.
2. Made repeated inappropriate comments about her appearance.
3. Violated professional boundaries, making the colleague feel uncomfortable.
4. Acted with sexual motivation, seeking sexual gratification or interaction.

The incident was reported the following day, with the complainant stating she felt “uncomfortable and embarrassed.”

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee found that the pharmacist’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, considering:

1. Inappropriate Sexual Comments in the Workplace:
   • The pharmacist made multiple personal remarks about his colleague’s appearance.
   • The committee found that his remarks were inappropriate and unprofessional in a workplace setting.
2. Displaying an Indecent Image in the Pharmacy Dispensary:
   • He deliberately showed his colleague an explicit image on his mobile phone, claiming it was an accident.
   • However, the committee found this explanation unlikely, considering his earlier sexual comments.
   • The committee noted:“It is implausible that the registrant accidentally displayed an indecent image directly after making multiple sexual comments.”
3. Sexual Motivation Behind His Actions:
   • The GPhC determined that the pharmacist’s behaviour was sexually motivated, as he directed his comments only at one colleague.
   • The committee ruled:“The registrant engaged in a pattern of sexualised behaviour aimed at achieving sexual gratification or interaction.”
4. Abuse of Position as the Responsible Pharmacist:
   • As the most senior professional in the pharmacy that day, he had a duty to set an example of professionalism.
   • Instead, he created an uncomfortable and inappropriate working environment.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The GPhC ruled that the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was impaired, citing:

• Sexual misconduct in a professional setting.
• Breach of fundamental professional principles.
• Damage to public confidence in pharmacy.

The committee stated:

“The registrant’s conduct was serious. His inappropriate comments and actions towards a colleague fell far below the standards expected of a pharmacist.”

However, the committee acknowledged that:

• The pharmacist expressed remorse and apologised to the colleague during the hearing.
• He showed insight into his behaviour, admitting that his comments were sexual in nature.
• There was no physical contact, and the incident occurred over one day.

Given these factors, the committee found that:

“While the risk of repetition is low, a regulatory sanction is required to uphold professional standards.”

Sanction:

The committee imposed a three-month suspension, considering:

• Aggravating Factors:
  • The misconduct occurred in a pharmacy setting.
  • The registrant was in a leadership role as the Responsible Pharmacist.
  • His colleague felt uncomfortable and embarrassed.
  • There was a degree of premeditation, as he waited until they were alone before showing the indecent image.
• Mitigating Factors:
  • The misconduct lasted only one day.
  • The pharmacist admitted some of the allegations.
  • He expressed genuine remorse.
  • There was no previous disciplinary history.
  • He showed insight and took steps to ensure the behaviour would not be repeated.

The committee ruled that:

“A three-month suspension is appropriate to maintain public confidence in the profession while acknowledging the registrant’s remorse and insight.”

A review hearing was not required, as the committee was satisfied that the pharmacist understood his wrongdoing and would not repeat it.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding professional conduct, workplace behaviour, and maintaining boundaries.

1. Workplace Conduct Must Always Be Professional:
   • Comments about colleagues’ appearances are inappropriate in a pharmacy setting.
   • Pharmacists must ensure all workplace interactions remain respectful and professional.
2. Sexual Misconduct in the Workplace Has Serious Consequences:
   • Even a single incident of inappropriate behaviour can lead to suspension or removal.
   • Pharmacists must be aware of their conduct and avoid any behaviour that could be perceived as sexual harassment.
3. Responsible Pharmacists Have a Duty to Set an Example:
   • As the most senior professional in the pharmacy, the registrant should have acted as a role model.
   • Instead, he created an uncomfortable working environment, violating his leadership responsibilities.
4. Insight and Remorse Can Reduce Sanctions but Not Prevent Them:
   • The registrant showed insight and remorse, which helped reduce the suspension period.
   • However, regulatory sanctions were still necessary to uphold professional standards.

Conclusion:

This case serves as a strong reminder that inappropriate behaviour in a pharmacy setting can have significant professional consequences.

While the pharmacist avoided removal from the register, his three-month suspension reinforces the importance of maintaining professionalism and appropriate workplace conduct.

Pharmacists must ensure that all workplace interactions remain professional and that colleagues feel respected and safe at work.