Home » Fitness to Practise Cases » Pharmacy Technician Suspended After Inappropriate Physical Contact with 17-Year-Old Staff Member During Car Journey
Pharmacy Technician Suspended After Inappropriate Physical Contact with 17-Year-Old Staff Member During Car Journey
Date of Decision: September 10, 2025
Registrant's Role: Pharmacy technician
Allegations:
On 12 March 2021, the registrant drove a 17-year-old female employee from the pharmacy to a nearby car park; while inside the vehicle the registrant intentionally: (1) held her hand; (2) kissed her hand while holding it; (3) stroked her hair; (4) hugged her; (5) kissed her head, from forehead down to her cheek; and (6) attempted to wipe her tears off her cheeks.
That the registrant’s actions were inappropriate.
That the registrant’s actions were sexual in nature.
That the registrant’s actions were sexually motivated.
Outcome: Suspension for 4 months, with an interim suspension imposed until the decision takes effect; a review is directed before expiry of the suspension.
GPhC Standards Breached:
Standard 3 – Communication: Failed to communicate appropriately, including touching the junior employee without consent during a private interaction.
Standard 6 – Professionalism: Failed to behave in a professional manner “at all times,” particularly during the car encounter.
Standard 9 – Leadership: Failed to demonstrate leadership; abused seniority in relation to a teenage employee.
Case Summary
Allegations This case concerned the registrant, a pharmacy technician and director/owner within a Bolton community pharmacy, and a 17-year-old employee (“Witness A”). On 12 March 2021 the registrant asked a colleague to send Witness A outside, invited her into his car, and drove her from the pharmacy to a nearby car park. During that period, while she was upset and crying, the registrant intentionally held and kissed her hand, stroked her hair, hugged her, kissed her head down to her cheek, and attempted to wipe away her tears. The registrant admitted only that he drove her to a car park; he denied the physical contact. The panel ultimately found Particular 1 (the physical contact) proved and Particular 2.1 (that this behaviour was “inappropriate”) proved, but did not find the conduct to be sexual in nature (2.2) or sexually motivated (2.3).
There was relevant contextual material about workplace dynamics. The superintendent pharmacist (“Mr 1”) and the registrant had a deteriorated business relationship, with later civil disputes and competing interests in nearby pharmacies. The panel examined whether Witness A’s account could be a fabrication influenced by that rivalry; it concluded the registrant’s “conspiracy” theory was “a stretch too far,” noting Witness A’s later business links with Mr 1 arose about two years after the incident.
The case file included contemporaneous workplace steps: Witness A reported distress on return to the pharmacy, described a later consultation-room conversation with senior staff, and went to the police on 18 March 2021. The officer in charge’s statement was admitted as hearsay, with the committee recording that it was not “first complaint” evidence because Witness A had spoken to colleagues earlier. WhatsApp exchanges from 13 March 2021 showed the registrant messaging in a friendly tone (including emojis), which the panel later considered in assessing his insight and the context of the following day.
Findings Fact-finding turned on the credibility of Witness A and the registrant in the absence of third-party eyewitnesses. The committee accepted that the registrant drove Witness A away from the pharmacy and that, while she was crying, he intentionally held and kissed her hand, stroked her hair, hugged her, kissed her head and cheek, and tried to wipe her tears. It rejected that the conduct had a sexual purpose or was sexually motivated. The committee reasoned that, taken at its highest for the Council, the touching could be distinguished from “overtly sexual” behaviour found in leading authorities; it concluded the more likely purpose was to comfort her, albeit in a wholly inappropriate way that breached professional boundaries.
At impairment, the panel evaluated the registrant’s insight. He submitted a reflective document and completed “Understanding Professional Boundaries” training (7 August 2025). In oral evidence he accepted the “severe inappropriateness” of driving a junior staff member to a secluded location for a private conversation, acknowledged the power imbalance, and recognised the need to consider how his conduct would be perceived by others. Nonetheless, the panel had continuing concerns about sufficient insight into the boundary failings and the risk of repetition, especially given the denial of the proved physical contact.
GPhC Determination on Impairment The committee held that the proved conduct amounted to misconduct under the Roylance/Meadow line of authorities—falling seriously short of what would be proper, and “deplorable” to fellow practitioners. It identified breaches of three Standards for Pharmacy Professionals (2017):
Standard 3 (Communication): failure to communicate appropriately, replacing verbal support with unsolicited physical contact during a highly sensitive, emotionally charged interaction.
Standard 6 (Professionalism): failure to behave professionally “at all times,” notably by taking a teenage staff member off site and engaging in intimate physical contact while she was crying.
Standard 9 (Leadership): failure to demonstrate leadership, misusing seniority in relation to a junior employee.
The committee emphasised public interest grounds: protecting the public, maintaining confidence, and upholding standards. It found current impairment on public interest/risk of repetition bases, noting aggravating features (breach of multiple standards; the employee’s age and vulnerability) and mitigation (no prior findings; isolated incident; difficult workplace environment; elapsed time; some remediation; engagement with proceedings; apology).
Sanction Considering outcomes in ascending order, the committee rejected “no action” and “warning” as insufficient to mark seriousness or protect the public. It considered, but rejected, conditions of practice: the concern was not clinical performance but boundaries and attitudes; conditions would not adequately reflect seriousness. It imposed a 4-month suspension as a proportionate response to protect the public against repetition, send a clear message to the profession, and maintain public confidence. The committee directed a review before expiry to assess developed insight and remediation. An interim suspension was imposed with immediate effect pending the decision taking effect.
Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals
Boundary management is non-negotiable. Private, off-site, one-to-one meetings with junior staff—especially minors or very young employees—are fraught with risk. Even when the intent is to “comfort,” unsolicited physical contact (holding/kissing a hand, stroking hair, hugging, wiping tears) crosses professional lines. Keep sensitive conversations in appropriate, visible, risk-assessed settings (e.g., consultation room with windows/visibility or a second staff member nearby) and rely on verbal communication and documented support.
Communicate professionally—don’t substitute touch for words. Boundary-respecting communication (Standard 3) means gaining informed consent for any supportive measures, using clear, measured language, and checking that the colleague is comfortable with the setting and participants. Physical reassurance is not an appropriate communication tool in the workplace context.
Leadership is shown in safeguarding practice. Senior staff must model boundaries (Standard 9). If a team member is distressed, pause operations if necessary and activate the pharmacy’s safeguarding or HR pathways: identify a safe space, involve another manager or safeguarding lead, consider signposting to occupational health, and contemporaneously record the concern and your actions.
Documentation and escalation matter. In this case, contemporaneous discussions in the consultation room, subsequent WhatsApp traffic, and police reporting shaped the evidential picture. In your practice, record factual notes (date/time, attendees, exact words used, actions agreed), avoid informal private channels for sensitive matters, and escalate according to policy—especially where a minor (under 18) is involved.
Insight and remediation should be active and early. Courses on professional boundaries and mentoring should be pursued promptly after any boundary lapse. Reflective accounts should frankly accept what went wrong, explore impact on the person affected, colleagues, and public trust, and set out concrete practice changes (e.g., never holding such meetings off site; always involving a second colleague; using chaperones; documenting and obtaining consent). Panels will weigh timing, depth of learning, and behaviour change when assessing risk of repetition.
Separate clinical excellence from professional conduct. The panel expressly noted no clinical performance concerns; the issue was attitudinal and behavioural. High clinical competence cannot offset boundary violations—the public interest requires that both clinical and professional standards are met.
“The Committee has not found as a fact that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual. However, The Committee has found that he intentionally touched and kissed Witness A, a junior female employee, in private in his car… The Committee accepted… that the Registrant abused his position of trust and leadership.”
Practical takeaways to apply tomorrow
Keep all sensitive welfare conversations on-site in visible/recordable spaces, with a second colleague present where appropriate.
Use words, not touch. If the person is distressed, offer tissues, water, and time—but maintain physical distance and ask permission before any proximity-related act (e.g., sitting closer).
If the person is under 18, treat it as a safeguarding context: inform the designated safeguarding lead, follow policy, and document steps taken.
After any incident raising boundary questions, seek a mentor, undertake boundaries training, and produce a reflective action plan—then implement and audit it.
Overall, the case underscores that even ostensibly “comforting” physical contact with a junior staff member in a secluded setting can amount to serious misconduct, engage multiple GPhC standards (3, 6 and 9), and lead to suspension—regardless of the absence of sexual intent.
Original Case Document
The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.
