This case involved a claim that the complainant has been discriminated against on grounds of family status as she had been harassed by her employer. The basic facts were not in dispute being that the claimant had been asked by a manager of the respondent company on whether she had a problem with her hair, or if her daughter had. The complainant responded in the negative and enquired as to whether she meant 'nits'. 

After this discussion the complainant went to the ward kitchen and the manager went into it afterwards. Following an interaction between the two the claimant left and subsequently made a complaint under the Dignity at Work policy in place. This complaint was investigated and the Respondent found that this conversation, although handled incorrectly, was not intended to upset the complainant and that the manager had offered an apology. This decision was appealed and the original decision was upheld with a recommendation of further training and mediation between the complainant and the manager involved.
 

The complainant submitted that the query regarding her daughter was a reference to her family status and constituted harassment. The manager involved stated in evidence that two of her colleagues had reported a concern about something in the employee's hair and that she had no option but to approach the issue, given the fact she worked in a hospital. She also stated that the question regarding the complainant's daughter was founded on life experiences regarding 'nits' among school children. 

The Court stated that they were satisfied that the question regarding the complainant's daughter raised an inference of discrimination. The Court agreed that the reasons for the engagement were well-intended but they accepted that the experience did cause distress to the complainant. The Court concluded that a person of a different family status than the complainant in the same circumstances would have been invited to engage with the manager in the office and that a person of another family status would not have been asked about their child's hair if the manager had been aware of that difference in family status.

However, the Court held that any questions regarding the complainant's daughter did not amount to conduct which had the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity and creating a negative environment for the person. Accordingly, the Court found that the respondent did not harass the complainant on the grounds of family status.