UK tribunal rules ‘Auntie’ remark amounted to harassment in landmark workplace case

A healthcare assistant has been awarded compensation after a UK employment tribunal ruled that she was subjected to harassment by a colleague who repeatedly called her “auntie” despite her objections, in a case that highlighted the intersection of cultural expression and workplace conduct.

The tribunal awarded Ilda Esteves, 61, £1,425 in damages, finding that she had been harassed on the grounds of age and sex while working at the West London NHS Trust. The incidents occurred while Ms Esteves was employed in the trust’s Women’s Forensic Services.

The claim was brought against her colleague, Charles Oppong, a staff nurse of Ghanaian heritage. During the proceedings, Mr Oppong argued that the term “auntie” is widely used in Ghanaian culture as a respectful form of address for older women.

However, the tribunal determined that the continued use of the term after Ms Esteves explicitly asked him to stop constituted an offensive working environment. The tribunal also heard evidence regarding inappropriate comments suggesting she would be a “good match” for an older colleague.

In a formal complaint submitted in September 2023, Ms Esteves detailed her concerns, stating: “A staff member called me auntie multiple times despite telling him to call me by my name. He said you want to be young then!”

She also noted inappropriate remarks about her appearance, adding: “He also commented on my lipstick and said I would be a good match for a member of staff named George.”

Mr Oppong admitted to using the term on one occasion but denied repeated use, maintaining that his intentions were purely respectful and rooted in his cultural background.

Employment Judge George Alliott rejected Mr Oppong’s account, describing his evidence as unreliable. The judge noted that Mr Oppong was “reluctant to acknowledge that there was a George working on his ward” and was “evasive and vague” during questioning.

“We find that Charles Oppong probably did refer to [Ms Esteves] as auntie on a number of occasions and probably did make the comment about her being a match for an older colleague,” the judge stated.

“We find that Charles Oppong, as a staff nurse responsible for leading the teams, should not have made such comments. We find that Charles Oppong’s purpose was probably an offensive attempt at humour.”

The tribunal acknowledged the cultural significance of the term, noting that it is “in fact, a term of respect in Ghanaian culture.” However, it concluded that the use of the term against Ms Esteves’s expressed wishes rendered it inappropriate in a professional setting.

“We find that [Ms Esteves] did perceive it as creating an offensive environment. We find that the circumstances of the comments being made in the office and in the corridor and at handover were such that it had the effect of creating an offensive environment,” the judgment read.

“Consequently, [her] claim of harassment on this ground succeeds.”

While the harassment claim was upheld, Ms Esteves’s additional claims of harassment, discrimination, victimisation and unlawful deduction of wages were dismissed.