Tribunal decision shows that even ‘culturally respectful language’ can amount to harassment if it is unwanted and fails to stop

In the matter of Mrs Ilda Esteves v West London NHS Trust, Watford Employment Tribunal heard that Mrs Esteves repeatedly informed her NHS colleague Charles Oppong that she wanted to be called by her name, rather than the term “Auntie”.

She also highlighted two instances in her testimony, where he commented on her being a “good match” for an older colleague.

At Employment Tribunal Mr Oppong defended his actions by saying ‘Auntie’ was a term of respect for older women in Ghanian culture. However, employment judge Alliott found that Charles Oppong as a staff nurse responsible for leading the teams, he should not have made such comments. The tribunal found that there had been unwanted conduct and that this did relate to Mrs Esteves’ age and sex. The term “Auntie” was because she was older, and the reference to a “match” with an older colleague was “probably because he was older, and due to her sex.” It was determined that the purpose of Mr Oppong was “probably an offensive attempt at humour”, and that Mrs Esteves did perceive this as creating an offensive environment.  As a result, Mrs Esteves’s claim of harassment on the grounds of age and sex was upheld. Her additional claim of race discrimination, however was not.

Mrs Esteves was awarded a total of total £1,425.15 in damages for injury to feelings.

Forbes Comment:

“Although race discrimination was pleaded by Ms Esteves, it was the claims of harassment related to the claimant’s age and sex which were upheld. The Equality Act 2010 defines ‘harassment’ as unwanted conduct relating to relevant protected characteristics, including age, sex, race and religion or belief, which has the purpose or effect of either violating that person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

“In this Tribunal, it was evidenced that the claimant had been referred to as ‘Auntie’ on multiple occasions, and she had made it clear that she wanted it to stop. The Tribunal also heard that the claimant had been subjected to comments about her being a match for an older colleague. These comments would have been offensive to the claimant as they were against her wishes and amounted to discrimination, as “Auntie” was used because she was older, and the reference “to a match” was probably due to her age and also sex.

“The Tribunal did note in their judgement and took into account that “Auntie” is, in fact, a term of respect in Ghanaian culture and the harasser had Ghanaian heritage. However, the comments were against the claimant’s wishes and the Tribunal found that the Claimant did perceive these comments as creating an offensive environment. In such circumstances, the repeated behaviour makes it difficult to argue any case of misunderstanding because of differences in culture. It seems there had been sufficient opportunity for any misunderstanding to have been explained, understood and acted upon.

“Best-practice for handling these situations will centre around effective line management, where early intervention and open conversations will create an opportunity for all parties to understand any differences in cultures. Such transparency will provide action points and steps, such as a formal meeting, which would look at how and why behaviour has occurred and appropriate actions to ensure equality, diversity and inclusion are embraced during daily practices. If any behaviours do not meet the expected standards, appropriate formal action can be taken. Training and education are also important and can create awareness of how the Equality Act 2010 should be upheld in workplaces.

“Finally, the Employment Rights Act 2025 will place a real focus on equality in the workplace. It will be essential that where findings are made that an individual has been harassed, that the learnings and subsequent actions are implemented, to evidence a supportive workplace free from discrimination.”