O A Ajiga v Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust: 3301610/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3301610/2023
Between
O A AjigaClaimantHertfordshire Community NHS TrustRespondent
Before
Employment Judge S. MatthewsMr. A. Ohringer for claimantIn person for respondentIn person for claimantMr A Ohringer (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 11 July 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of harassment related to sex is not well-founded and is dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge S. Matthews 11 July 2025 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 12/08/2025 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/[2]Case number: 3301610/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Olubukola Anike Ajiga[3]Respondent: Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Under Rule 67, the reasons for the judgment sent to the parties on 1 September 2025 is corrected as set out in bold type at paragraph 2, 41 & 70 of the corrected reasons for the judgment.[5]19 December 2025 SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 22 December 2025[6]FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Important note to the Claimant(s) and Respondent(s): Any dates for asking for written reasons, applying for reconsideration or appealing against the judgment are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date the original judgment or reasons were sent, as explained in the letter that sent the original judgment.[7]Case Number: 3301610/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Olubukola Anike Ajiga Respondent: Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal On: 9,10 and 11 July 2025 Before:
REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed through an agency as a healthcare worker for the respondent. She brought a claim alleging harassment related to sex and sexual harassment. The respondent denied the claims.[2]The tribunal was supplied with a bundle of 672 pages. I heard witness evidence from the claimant and from the following witnesses for the respondent: Justine Fraser, Lead Nurse; Helen Richards, Ward Sister, referred to as both XY and A below; Abigail Lawrence, Ward Manger; Jacqui Boon, former receptionist at the respondent, and Dhriti Hajra, People Manager.[3]References to pages in the bundle below are set out in brackets(x). References to paragraphs in the witness statements consist of the witness’s initials and number or letter of the paragraph (AB-YZ).[4]The witness Helen Richards was the subject of an Anonymisation Order and a Restricted Reporting Order which was in place until promulgation of this Judgment. She is referred to in the documents as A and the pseudonym A and XY were used interchangeably throughout the hearing.[5]The hearing took place before a Judge sitting alone and not a full panel because a full panel was not available. The parties were informed by email the day before Case Number: 3301610/2023 2 and did not object.[6]On the first day of the hearing, we discussed the timetable and order of witnesses, and I indicated that I wished to hear evidence on liability in the first part of the hearing and that I would only proceed to hear evidence on remedy if the claimant was successful on liability.[7]The respondent made an application for anonymity and a restricted reporting order for a person whose name is redacted in the documents and is referred to as ‘B’. The claimant has made allegations against that person which do not form part of this claim. I refused the respondent’s application because I did not hear any specific evidence about the effect on B’s family and personal life to enable me to weigh that against the fundamental principle of open justice. I took into account that Employment Judge Margo had recorded in his case management order that the allegations relating to B do not appear relevant to any of the issues, and in the event I did not hear any evidence relating to B and I did not need to refer to B in these reasons.[8]The details of the case displayed at the tribunal were incorrect on the first morning of the hearing. They anonymised the parties. Before I started hearing evidence in the afternoon I ensured that was rectified. I ensured the tribunal was displaying a restricted reporting order in respect of the witness Helen Richards.[9]The morning of the hearing consisted of a discussion of case management issues and the application regarding the person, B, who I refer to above and who is not relevant to this claim.[10]We heard the claimant’s evidence on the first afternoon of the hearing and the respondent’s evidence on the second day of the hearing.[11]It was necessary for me to stop the claimant cross examining the respondent’s witnesses part way through the evidence of Helen Richards. I gave the claimant several warnings about her conduct before I did so. Many of her questions did not go to the issues I needed to decide but when I pointed this out to the claimant she complained loudly that my interjections interrupted her chain of thought. I reached the conclusion that she saw cross examination as an opportunity to berate the witnesses rather than test their evidence and that she did not intend to restrict herself to the issues in dispute. Indeed she said she wanted to do a character assassination. I offered her a break to reconsider her questions and how they aligned to the issues, which she declined. I suggested that she listed the topics she wanted to ask questions on so that I could check the topics aligned with the issues but she was unwilling to do so.[12]The questions she asked included asking HR to consider the claimant’s vulnerable position as an immigrant. When HR replied that she was also an immigrant the claimant replied, ‘But you are Caucasian’.[13]I told the claimant that she was to put her questions through me and asked her what questions she would like me to put to the witnesses. She said she did not want to ask questions if I was going to stop her. Indeed, when there was an opportunity to cross examine Jacqui Boon she said that she did not recognise her, that she was “lying” and refused to suggest any questions to put to her. Case Number: 3301610/2023 3[14]I therefore ensured I asked questions to the extent that I was satisfied that the witnesses' evidence had been tested, recognising that the claimant was a litigant in person and did not have the benefit of representation.
The issues
[15]The claims and issues were listed in the Record of Preliminary Hearing sent to the parties on 7 July 2023. At the beginning of this hearing we clarified one part of the issues which is where the event on 29 March 2022 is alleged to have taken place. The claimant says that it took place around the reception area between the yellow and red ward which was in front of the mini elevator.[16]The issues relating to liability were therefore finalised as follows: Limitation 1. Are there any allegations of discrimination that have been presented outside of the applicable three months statutory time limit for a discrimination claim pursuant to section 123(1 )(a) of the Equality Act 2010 ("EqA 2010")? 2. If so, are these allegations of discrimination part of a continuing act of discrimination pursuant to section 123(3)(a) of the EqA 2010? 3. If not, is it just and equitable for time to be extended under section 123(b) of the EqA 2010 to allow such allegations to be heard? Factual Issues 4. The Respondent admits that on 17 January 2023, Helen Richards (Nurse Band 6 Ward sister, Danesbury Neurological Centre) placed her hands on the Claimant's shoulders and leaned her forehead to the Claimant's forehead. The Respondent contends that there is no link between the Claimant's sex and this incident. The Respondent's position is that this incident was appropriately investigated and dealt with at the time. 5. On 29 March 2022, did Helen Richards place her left hand on the Claimant's right shoulder and place her right hand between the Claimant's chest and neck, while addressing the Claimant about what she needed to tell her agency to do in order to authorise her timesheets whilst they were standing in front of the mini elevator around the reception area between the yellow and red wards? 6. On or around April/ May 2022 at the Yellow Wing of the Respondent's Danesbury Neurological Centre, did Helen Richards move her hands up and down the Claimant's body, leading to the Claimant having to remove Helen Richard’s hands from her body? Legal Issues Harassment related to sex (section 26(1) of the EqA 2010) 7. In relation to each of points 4 to 6 above, does the alleged conduct amount to unwanted conduct? Case Number: 3301610/2023 4 8. If so, was the unwanted conduct related to the Claimant's sex (the Claimant identifies as female)? 9. If so, did the unwanted conduct have the purpose of violating the Claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant? 10. If not, did the unwanted conduct have the effect of violating the Claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant? 11. If so, was it reasonable for the unwanted conduct to have this effect? Harassment related to sex (section 26(2) of the EqA 2010 12. In relation to each of points 4 to 6 above, does the alleged conduct amount to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature? 13. If so, did this have the purpose of violating the Claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant? 14. If not, did this have the effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant? 15. If so, was it reasonable for the unwanted conduct to have this effect?
Introduction
[17]The claimant was employed by PE Global, a recruitment agency. She was engaged as a Healthcare Support Worker for the respondent when the three incidents set out at 4, 5 and 6 of the list of issues were said to have occurred. Her case is that these were either harassment related to sex or sexual harassment. She commenced Acas conciliation on 22 January 2023 which concluded on 24 January 2023. The claim form was issued on 2 February 2023.[18]The respondent denies that the claimant was subject to the alleged unwanted conduct on 29 March 2022 and or around April/May 2022 or that any such conduct was related to her sex or conduct of a sexual nature. The respondent admits that Helen Richards touched the claimant’s forehead with her own forehead on 17 January 2023, but it is denied that this conduct related to her sex or was conduct of a sexual nature. Findings of Fact Claimant commences work for the Respondent
Findings of Fact
[19]On 26 March 2022 the claimant arrived to work at Danesbury Neurological Unit for the first time. Unfortunately, she had been sent there by her agency by mistake, the agency having neglected to tell her that her shift had been cancelled. She was not on the rota, having been ‘bumped’ because a member of bank staff who had priority had booked on to the shift (HR/20). Case Number: 3301610/2023 5[20]She encountered Helen Richards (HR), Ward Sister. The claimant said that HR screamed at her “who you are, who you are?” (AAO/5b). I find it likely that the claimant was defensive and angry, to an extent understandably, having turned up for work to find that she was not needed. HR’s statement explains her usual practice when this kind of bumping error happens and why it is important to identify all staff present (HR/18-23), and I find it unlikely she would have departed from that. She accepts she may have spoken in a slightly raised tone inadvertently because she has hearing difficulties (HR/25) (HR/12). I find it likely that if she had “screamed” at her, the claimant would have complained at the time.[21]In deciding that I do not accept the claimant’s version of events I have taken into account that a subsequent investigation (described below) found that HR did not shout and that it was not unreasonable for her to have asked the claimant to verify her identity (DH/10.7).[22]I have also taken into account the demeanour of both the claimant and HR when giving their evidence. It was apparent to me during the tribunal, but also from the documents in the bundle, that the claimant is prone to exaggeration and hyperbole and is confrontational. As described above I had to stop her questioning the witnesses when it became apparent that she wished to confront them on issues which I did not need to decide rather than test their evidence. HR, on the other hand, answered questions in a straightforward way in the tribunal and remained very calm and measured despite the claimant becoming very confrontational towards her.[23]That alleged event on 26 March 2022 does not form part of the issues I need to decide, but the claimant gave evidence on it and I have included it by way of
background.
[24]The claimant and HR first worked together on 28 March 2022. They worked together on approximately 10 shifts between March 2022 and February 2023 (HR/13/14). Factual issue 4[25]The claimant alleged that the following occurred on their second day working together, 29 March 2022 (OAA/ 5c): “I was surprised when A awkwardly placed her right hand on my chest and her left hand across my shoulders while her attempted to use the small elevator as she revisited my timesheet, her authorisation and the need for me to be paid for the fortnight shift.”[26]HR recalls a conversation by the elevator about timesheets. She does not recall the date, and, to her recollection, it was brief and amicable (A/33).[27]The claimant did not make a complaint at the time and nor did she raise it in the formal complaint of 19 January 2023 which I refer to below, even though she did complain then about the event three days earlier on 26 March 2022 when she turned up for work and was not on the rota. In evidence she said the reason she did not complain was because it was in her subconscious, and she bottled it up. The complaint was subsequently investigated by obtaining a statement from HR in which she confirmed that she was working that day. She denied interacting Case Number: 3301610/2023 6 with the claimant physically (473).[28]I find the description of the alleged movement by the claimant difficult to understand and she was not able to describe it coherently in the tribunal. I noted that she had not referred to it in her original formal complaint. Accordingly, on a balance of probabilities, I did not find the allegation was made out. But even if Helen Richards did touch the claimant in some way when discussing time sheets I did not hear any evidence from the claimant to suggest that such a gesture was related to sex or conduct of a sexual nature. Factual issue 5[29]On or around April/May 2022, the claimant says the following occurred when she was on the Yellow Ward (OAA/5d): “A literally was rubbing her hand on my body that I was compelled to remove her hands from my body by her disgusting workplace sponsored sensual behaviour.” She raised that in her formal complaint of 19 January 2023, although she did not make a complaint at the time. It was subsequently investigated by a statement obtained from HR in which she said that she “never conducted this sort of physical behaviour towards any of my colleagues or to anybody in the workplace” (473).[30]I found it implausible that HR would, as the claimant alleged, rove her hands over the claimant to the extent that the claimant felt compelled to remove them. That is based on my impression of HR and accepting the testimony of the other witnesses, that HR is a warm and empathetic person and she would have noticed if the claimant had the reaction whereby she had literally removed her hands. I also find that the failure of the claimant to report the incident at the time is inconsistent with her confrontational manner when the incident described below on 17 January 2023 occurred. If the incident had occurred as she alleged she would have been very likely to report it at the time.[31]HR describes herself as a warm personality and admits that she may, at times, put her hand on the arm or shoulder of work colleagues to show empathy or to show gratitude to them for turning up for a shift (HR/45). Justine Fraser (JF), Lead Nurse, said that was quite common in their workplace. They are nurses and they sometimes use touch gestures to show empathy. Abigail Lawrence (AL), Ward Manager, described her as follows (AL/9): "A had a warm personality and wanted people to feel comfortable and happy at work. She could often show this through tactile gestures such as hugging someone or placing her arm around them. This tended to be on particular occasions such as birthdays or when someone was leaving the Trust, or to show compassion to patients. I have never considered there to be anything inappropriate or sexually orientated in "A"s conduct and she would simply want to show people that she cared for them. There have been no complaints regarding "A"'s conduct and her gestures were well reciprocated.”[32]It is possible that HR, because she is a tactile person, touched the claimant perhaps on her arm or shoulder and thought nothing of it at the time, and that the claimant, who is very adamant that she does not want to be touched, was disturbed. While I accept that the claimant says that she bottled her feelings up Case Number: 3301610/2023 7 on balance I find that implausible for the reasons set out above. Accordingly the claimant has failed to establish that the incident occurred as alleged. Factual issue 6[33]On 17 January 2023, an interaction took place which the respondent accepts, to an extent, as outlined at factual issue 6 above. HR describes a particularly busy shift and consequently she was extremely relieved to see the claimant when she turned up for work (HR/37): “In my enthusiasm, I gently placed both of my hands on her shoulders and touched her forehead with my forehead as a way of showing my gratitude that she had arrived.”[34]She further stated in her statement (HR/38): “It is difficult to explain why I greeted the claimant in this way as this is not a gesture I have used before. I wanted to show my sincere thanks for her arrival on the shift and believe I must have become overcome with emotion and acted in the moment. My actions were innocent and well intentioned and certainly did not have any sexual connotation. The Claimant did not step back or show any other form of body language to show that my conduct was unwanted which is why I was surprised by her subsequent complaint.”[35]The claimant’s interpretation of the gesture differs (OAA/5f). She said: “It was surprising and alarming to me when A,.... without any justiciable consensual basis ... placed her two hefty hands on my two shoulders by pinning me down whilst she simultaneously placed her tall bodied forehead on my forehead in flagrant disregard to the presence of COVID-19 infectious disease on the ward which puts patients and staff at risks despite my maintaining social distancing and my wearing a face mask. I was dumbfounded and had to report her reprehensible disgusting behaviour to the defendant ward manager (Abigail Lawrence) and to my Agency before I addressed A on the impropriety of her egregious insidious socially unacceptable behaviour to which she deflected from.”[36]The incident was witnessed by Jacqui Boon, receptionist. Jacqui Boon overheard HR saying, “something like ‘Thank you so much for coming, we were so short staffed,”. That corroborates HR’s evidence that her reason for the gesture was her relief that the claimant had turned up for work. Jacqui Boon remembered the incident because it was an “unusual” gesture, but she noted that HR “genuinely appeared very happy that the claimant had come to help”. She did not perceive any sexual connotations and she saw nothing in the claimant’s reaction that she perceived it that way (JB/10). She wrote a short email for the subsequent investigation on 18 July 2023 which gave the same account (469).[37]As indicated above the claimant did not challenge Jacqui Boon on what she saw when given a chance to do so in cross examination. When asked about it when she was cross examined the claimant said, "Jacqui Boon must have been hallucinating.” She also said, “She is not a witness of truth. She is a liar. I don’t even know her.”[38]The claimant spoke to HR around an hour and a half after the incident, saying that, in her culture, people do not touch on the head (HR/39). HR apologised. The claimant reported the incident to AL, Ward Manager, who spoke to HR Case Number: 3301610/2023 8 shortly afterwards. HR told her that she had apologised and she assumed that the matter was concluded (AL/27 to 30).[39]On 20 January 2023, HR was confronted in a private conversation by the claimant which the claimant recorded covertly. The claimant accepts that HR ‘proffered apology’ (OAA/5f). In her statement HR describes the claimant as verbally and physically aggressive, “shouting and slapping her hand into the palm of her other hand as she spoke”. “She said she had googled the gesture and found out that it was ‘voodoo practice’. She then accused me of being a lesbian”. (HR/41)[40]On 19 January 2023 the claimant raised a formal complaint which she described as a formal grievance (325). It was not dealt with within the respondent’s grievance procedure because the claimant was an agency worker (375), but a very thorough investigation was carried out as described below.[41]On 2 February 2023, a preliminary meeting took place on Microsoft Teams between the claimant, Dhritri Hajra (DH) (People Manager) and JF (384-386). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the complaint prior to the investigation. JF was asked to accompany DH because AL, who might have otherwise gone, was at that time on sick leave (DH/5).[42]During the meeting the claimant was very angry. The minutes have been heavily amended by the claimant but even taking those amendments into account, it is clear that the claimant made a threat to hit or slap HR and that JF had to advise the claimant to stay calm and talk professionally.[43]As a result of that threat, the respondent decided to pause the claimant’s work on the ward. As well as the threat, there was a complaint raised against the claimant by the ward manager at another of the Trust’s sites that she had raised her voice at them (DH/8). The respondent wanted to investigate both before the claimant came back to work, particularly as JF was going on holiday and AL was off sick, meaning the 2 senior managers on the ward would not be able to monitor a situation where there was potential for conflict (DH/8).[44]The claimant was due at work the next day. They tried to get a message to her through her agency, but she did not receive it, and she turned up to work. JF explained to her that she was temporarily restricted from booking further shifts until her complaint had been resolved. The claimant recorded the conversation without JF’s consent (JF/15). The pause on her work was lifted on 23 February 2023 when JF returned to work from her holiday, but the claimant did not work for the respondent again (AL/34).[45]A detailed investigation into the claimant’s formal complaint was carried out by Pauline Minagh (PM) (ICT Manager) supported by DL (DL/9/10). The report and Appendices (293-473) run to 80 pages and demonstrate that she interviewed several staff and considered relevant documents. The investigation concluded that the claimant’s allegations about Helen Richard’s conduct on 26 March 2022 and April/ May 2022 were not substantiated (305). It found the particular gesture on 17 January 2023 was “inappropriate professional conduct” but there was “no evidence to substantiate sexual intent or to harm OAA’s dignity” (304). It was Case Number: 3301610/2023 9 recommended that HR and other staff on the unit have further training on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (17) (459).[46]PM wrote to the claimant to confirm the outcome on 27 April 2023 (452-460). HR carried out the recommended training in late May and early June 2023 (HR/5).[47]I set out below some specific findings I made on the evidence which are relevant to my conclusions:[48]The claimant does not accept that any level of physical contact is normal in the workplace. She made that very clear in cross examination. That is a view which she is entitled to hold. Even reaching out and touching a colleague's arm is unacceptable in the claimant’s view. The only time the claimant would find any physical contact acceptable without consent is, she says, to avert an accident. She gave the example of being on a very crowded bus and a young male reaching out to stop her falling.[49]The claimant emphasised several times in evidence, and even in submissions, that the gesture on 17 January 2023 could have passed covid to her. I found that she focused on this in her evidence and submissions more frequently than she alleged that the gesture was related to her sex or had sexual connotations.[50]In evidence the claimant maintained her allegation that HR was engaging in voodoo practice; that HR, as a Caucasian person, was trying to touch her forehead to get some power from her as an African person and that she had pinned her down so that she could place her head on the claimant’s forehead. When asked whether she alleged that the gesture was a sexual gesture or voodoo practice, the claimant was emphatic that it was both. She also alleged that it was racist although that did not form part of her claim. She was unable to explain how or why it was sexual.[51]I found the claimant’s explanation for HR’s motivation implausible. I found HR’s explanation, that she was pleased to see the claimant because it was a busy shift, far more plausible. I also considered that her evidence was corroborated by Jacqui Boon, whose evidence was not challenged by the claimant.[52]In conclusion I found that the claimant failed to establish that factual allegations 4 and 5 occurred as alleged. It is accepted that factual allegation 6 occurred. I have found that the motivation for the gesture was not related to sex and it was not conduct of a sexual nature.
[67]I made separate findings on each of the three factual issues alleged. Factual issues 4 and 5[68]With regard to the alleged incident on 29 March 2022, I found that the incident did not occur as alleged. The claimant did not refer to it in her formal complaint even though she referred to an incident three days earlier which was arguably not as serious. I considered the type of movement alleged unusual, and the claimant failed to describe it coherently. Accordingly I did not find her evidence about the incident credible.[69]In any event, I would find that such an incident was not related to sex because it was in the context of a discussion about time sheets and it was not conduct of a sexual nature.[70]The claimant was unable to identify the exact date of the alleged incident in April/May 2022. It was a serious allegation that HR had roved her hands over the claimant to the extent that the claimant had to remove them. I preferred the respondent’s testimony because I found it likely that the claimant would have complained at the time if that had occurred. I found that the claimant had failed to establish that the incident occurred as alleged.[71]The claimant has failed to establish facts from which I could decide that the respondent contravened s.26 EqA 2010 and the burden of proof does not shift.[72]In addition, those allegations are out of time and the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to consider them. As the complaints failed I did not find it necessary to consider in detail whether part of a continuing discriminatory course of conduct or whether, if that was the case, it would be just and equitable to extend time. Factual issue 6[73]The respondent accepts that the incident on 17 January 2023 occurred. I have therefore considered whether it was related to sex, whether it was conduct of a sexual nature, the purpose or motivation of HR, whether it was unwanted, the effect on the claimant and whether it was reasonable for it to have that effect.[74]I have decided that the gesture was not related to sex or conduct of a sexual nature. In reaching that conclusion I have considered the nature of the gesture, and I have not identified any feature that leads me to conclude that it is related to sex or conduct of a sexual nature. I find that there was nothing inherently sexual about it. Moreover, the claimant did not advance a persuasive case in evidence or her submissions. I heard no evidence that led me to conclude that the claimant genuinely felt the gesture was sexual or related to sex in any way. The claimant said she was “dumbfounded”. She focused on the risk of infecting her with covid or that it was a voodoo practice.[75]In respect of HR’s motivation for the gesture I found that HR was on a busy shift, and I accepted her evidence that her motivation was that she was pleased to see the claimant. As I have stated above, I find that is a more credible explanation than the claimant’s explanation of voodoo or lesbianism or sexual assault. Case Number: 3301610/2023 14[76]Having accepted HR’s evidence on her motivation, I find it did not have the purpose of violating the claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant.[77]I accept the claimant’s evidence that the gesture was unwanted. It was unwelcome and uninvited. I accept that the claimant found it offensive, hostile and degrading. The claimant had a strong belief that there should be no touch whatsoever in the workplace without specifically obtaining consent first.[78]However I do not accept that it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. Most people would accept some degree of touch in the workplace, particularly in a caring profession such as nursing. It was a short lived event which cannot reasonably have been expected to cause offence. I have taken into account the testimony of Jacqui Boon who witnessed the incident and perceived no sexual connotations. She interpreted it as HR being genuinely happy to see the claimant. Her evidence was not challenged by the claimant.
Summary
[79]The claimant has failed to establish that factual issues 4 and 5 occurred as alleged. In respect of factual issue 6 she has failed to establish that the conduct was related to sex or of a sexual nature. Moreover it was not reasonable for the conduct to have the effect alleged.[80]Accordingly, the claimant’s claims are dismissed. Approved by: