Supermarket Pharmacist Removed from Register After Years of Sexually Inappropriate Conduct Toward Colleague

Date of Decision: May 9, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Sexually inappropriate touching of a female colleague, including pressing genitals against her, slapping her bottom, and stroking her leg
Coercing a colleague to sit on his lap for help with coursework
Invading the colleague’s personal space and making inappropriate comments
Exploiting a position of professional power over a vulnerable employee
Sexual motivation behind repeated boundary violations spanning multiple years

Outcome: Erasure from the GPhC register

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 3 – Show respect for others
Standard 3.9 – Maintain proper professional boundaries in your relationships with patients and others that you come into contact with during the course of your professional practice and take special care when dealing with vulnerable people
Standard 6.2 – Do not abuse your professional position or exploit the vulnerability or lack of knowledge of others
Standard 6.5 – Meet accepted standards of personal and professional conduct
Standard 6.6 – Comply with legal and professional requirements and accepted guidance on professional practice

Case Summary

Allegations

This Fitness to Practise hearing considered the conduct of a pharmacist employed between 2007 and 2015. The allegations, brought forward by a pharmacy technician (referred to as Miss A), described a prolonged pattern of inappropriate and sexually motivated behaviour within the pharmacy workplace.

The conduct alleged included:

Pressing his genitals against Miss A’s back and neck on multiple occasions
Slapping her bottom with his hand and prescription baskets
Rubbing her leg while giving her a lift home
Forcing her to sit on his lap in the consultation room monthly over a two-year period as a condition of receiving help with her accredited checking technician (ACT) coursework
Asking her to lift up her top and then commenting that her stomach was “still a bit flabby”
Repeated boundary violations over nearly eight years, escalating in nature and frequency

Miss A testified that she felt powerless to resist these actions due to the pharmacist’s seniority, mentorship role, and perceived influence with senior management.

Findings

The GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee found Miss A to be a consistent and credible witness, despite the historic nature of some allegations. They found her version of events supported by:

Her consistent testimony across interviews with her employer, the GPhC, and at the hearing
One key incident captured on CCTV, showing the pharmacist approaching Miss A from behind, placing his hands on her hips, and pressing close to her body
Her medical records, which corroborated the psychological impact of the abuse
The lack of a plausible alternative explanation from the pharmacist

In contrast, the Committee found the pharmacist’s testimony evasive, inconsistent, and tailored to minimise his perceived authority over Miss A. For example, he initially denied any management role, contrary to signed witness statements, and gave shifting accounts of key incidents only after being shown evidence.

The Committee concluded that he had abused a position of power and had acted deliberately over an extended period.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee concluded that the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was impaired due to serious misconduct. They stated:

“The Registrant abused his professional position, compelling Miss A to sit on his lap every month for two years, telling her that she had to do this if she wanted help with her coursework… There was unquestionably a serious departure from the standards expected of a pharmacist.”

The panel found his behaviour to be:

Sexually motivated
Deplorable by the standards of the profession and the public
A clear abuse of trust and position

Miss A’s vulnerability, his senior role, and the persistence of his behaviour all contributed to their finding of impairment.

Sanction

The Committee imposed the most serious sanction available: erasure from the register.

They considered but rejected lesser sanctions (e.g. suspension) due to:

The long-standing nature of the misconduct
The lack of insight or remorse shown by the pharmacist
The potential ongoing risk to public confidence and patient safety

The Committee concluded that only erasure would protect the public and maintain trust in the profession.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Professional boundaries must be maintained at all times—especially when in a position of authority over others.
Sexualised behaviour and language in the workplace is unacceptable, regardless of the perceived culture or rapport.
Power dynamics matter: coercion can occur even in seemingly “friendly” or “consensual” contexts.
If faced with allegations, full and honest engagement with the process is critical—evasive or shifting accounts can severely damage credibility.
Fitness to Practise isn’t just about clinical skill—it’s about upholding trust, ethics, and dignity within the profession.

This case is a stark reminder that inappropriate behaviour, especially when repeated and exploitative, will lead to the most severe consequences, including permanent removal from the profession.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.