Case Summaries
Back to Case SummariesBullying, harassment and sexual misconduct - CS042509
Case summary April 2025 | Partly Justified
A student on a professional healthcare course complained about the behaviour of other students on the same course in connection with a piece of group work. They said that they had received inappropriate messages from one member of the group, had been excluded from meetings about group work, locked out of critical documents and there had been disagreements about how to approach the work. The student initially asked for an apology from the rest of the group but didn’t want the matter to be formally recorded on the other students’ records. But the student then said that this was because they were worried about reprisals. On reflection, the student felt that the behaviour was a form of harassment connected to their disability, and that the other student’s behaviour ought to be considered under the provider’s fitness to practice regulations.
The provider investigated using the student complaint process. It decided not to use either the student disciplinary processes or the student fitness to practise processes. It concluded that there was evidence that the student had been excluded from discussions and locked out of key documents, but it did not see evidence that this was related to the student’s disability. It invited the student to speak to a member of staff with expertise in equality, diversity and inclusion and to submit a further complaint if they felt that they had experienced disability-related harassment. It asked the other students to write an apology. It encouraged those students to also write a reflective piece, but did not make this mandatory, taking account of the proximity of the students’ final assessments.
The student asked for the outcome of their complaint to be reconsidered. They were not satisfied with the apologies and felt that the provider’s actions were very lenient towards the other students and were not consistent with its stated “zero tolerance approach” towards bullying and harassment. The provider concluded that it had taken a reasonable approach. The student complained to us about the outcome and about how long the process had taken.
We decided to uphold part of the complaint (we decided in was Partly Justified).
We were satisfied that the provider had addressed the complaint in a timely way, taking just over the 90-day timeframe set out in our Good Practice Framework. But we did not think that the provider had clearly explained to the student why it did not consider the other students’ conduct under the formal disciplinary procedures. This was confusing in the light of its findings that the group had excluded the student. The provider said that it could not compel the other students to reflect on their behaviour or apologise because it had not made formal findings under the disciplinary processes, effectively leaving the student without a resolution to the complaint. It was also not appropriate to ask the student to make a new complaint about harassment when this related to the same behaviours that were the subject of a complaint that had not yet exhausted the provider’s processes.
We recommended that the provider provide refresher training for staff on the operation of its policy for addressing bullying. We also recommended that the provider pay the student compensation for the distress caused by its handling of the complaint.