Putting a supportive hand on a female colleague’s shoulder in a ‘fatherly’ way is not sex harassment, a tribunal has ruled.
Employment Judge Robin Havard said the gesture may instead signal support and is not done in a way to humiliate or intimidate the recipient.
The ruling came in the case of HR worker Yvette Rankmore, who took to a city council to a tribunal after her male boss placed his hand on her shoulder while offering advice.
Ms Rankore admitted that it was a ‘fatherly type gesture’ – but said she did not consider that it was ‘appropriate’ in the workplace.
However, the tribunal, who heard Ms Rankmore did not say anything to her boss about the incident, dismissed the HR worker’s claims and said that the behaviour of the male boss was not carried out with the intention of violating Ms Rankmore’s dignity.
The employment tribunal, held in Cardiff, was told Ms Rankmore started working for the city council in 2004.
In 2023, Ms Rankmore was a people services advisor at the authority and she sat opposite Jason Carlson in the office.
The council worker alleged to the tribunal that there were occasions where Mr Carlson was ‘putting his arms around me’.
A judge at Cardiff Employment Tribunal (above) said Yvette Rankmore had ‘accepted that Jason Carlson had done so in, ‘a fatherly way’ and that his conduct was not of a sexual nature.’
She said she ‘avoided’ going over to his desk but said ‘if he wanted to speak with me he would come over to my desk and still put his arms around me’.
During the proceedings, Ms Rankmore told the judge that her boss would put an arm around her shoulder.
Ms Rankmore told the panel that her boss had placed an arm on her shoulder or back two or three times over a four-and-a-half month period.
The employee said Mr Carlson acted the same with other people, and another council worker confirmed in evidence that he would ‘put an arm on someone’s shoulder in a supportive way when showing someone how to do something’.
The panel heard that in later 2023, Mr Carlson also made an ‘inappropriate comment’ about her daughter which ‘changed’ her opinion of her boss.
The following June, she raised concerns over the conduct of Mr Carlson to other senior figures at the authority.
The council worker was offered mediation but she declined this and informal resolution proceedings commenced.
The allegation of Mr Carlson putting his arm around Ms Rankmore was upheld – but it was found that he ‘had not realised this caused offence’.
Mr Carlson subsequently received training in ’emotional intelligence and management’ and participated with other members of the team on training relating to the law concerning sexual harassment, the panel said.
But, in August 2024, Ms Rankmore lodged a formal resolution application and said she felt as if the informal process had not led to a ‘satisfactory outcome’.
Her concerns were not upheld and she again appealed the findings, but a subsequent hearing found both formal and informal investigations had been ‘robust and appropriate’.
The advisor took the council to a tribunal, alleging sex and sexual harassment, among other claims.
In her written evidence, she said Mr Carlson was putting his arms around her and ‘rubbing’ her back.
The panel said that they were ‘concerned’ that Ms Rankmore had ‘exaggerated’ Mr Carlson’s conduct by making it sound ‘more intimate’.
The tribunal accepted Mr Carlson’s evidence that he was a ‘tactile person’ and said he also behaved the same way towards other staff.
Employment Judge Robin Havard said the tribunal also accepted Ms Rankmore’s evidence that she found his conduct inappropriate and that it made her feel uncomfortable.
But the tribunal found that ‘Mr Carlson had placed his arm on (Ms Rankmore’s) shoulder in a supportive manner and there was no evidence to suggest that (Ms Rankmore) was ‘singled out’ for such contact.
‘Whilst this may have been unwanted conduct, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it related to (Ms Rankmore’s) sex.’
The judge said Ms Rankmore had ‘accepted that Mr Carlson had done so in, ‘a fatherly way’ and that his conduct was not of a sexual nature.’
All claims made by Ms Rankmore were brought to the tribunal too late.
But the judge said that in any event, they would have been dismissed.
