Pharmacist who asked colleague what her favourite sex position is LET OFF at tribunal because he had a 'restrictive Muslim background'
- Professional panel accepted Khalil Jamil's conduct was not sexually-motivated
- He claimed his strict Muslim background meant he lacked basic understanding of appropriate workplace behaviour
- Jamil was cleared of professional misconduct and was instead given an official warning
Warning: Khalil Jamil blamed his behaviour on his restrictive background
A pharmacist who made crude remarks to three of his female colleagues has escaped with a warning after a panel heard he came from a 'restrictive Muslim background' and was unaware of the offence his conduct had caused.
Khalil Jamil asked one of the women about her favourite love-making position and quizzed another about the mating habits of her horses - but a professional panel ruled his behaviour was not sexually motivated.
The General Pharmaceutical Council panel found Jamil acted inappropriately by making the comments and standing too close to his assistants.
However, they accepted that his background in a strict Muslim community meant he was unfamiliar to working in such an open environment with women and his basic social skills meant he lacked understanding of appropriate conduct.
As the remarks were not sexually motivated the panel cleared Jamil of misconduct and gave him an official warning.
It also took into consideration the fact that Jamil had remedied his actions by attending a 'dignity at work' course.
Panel chairman Patrick Malmo QC said: ‘He felt the source of this behaviour in 2009, was that he comes from a very restrictive background, with little social life, and none at all outside of his own community.
‘He lacked social skills, and had little knowledge of how one should be when working with colleagues.
‘He was unable to distinguish between friendliness and over familiarity.’
Mr Malmo added: ‘We do not think there is a serious risk of this kind of conduct being repeated.
‘Although we do not find the registrant impaired, we have the ability to issue a warning, and given the circumstances of this case, we believe it is necessary to do so.’
In a statement read to the hearing one of Jamil’s colleagues, referred to as CH, said she was working with Jamil at the Cooperative Pharmacy in Fauldhouse, West Lothian, in July 2009, when he asked: ‘Do you have a boyfriend? Do you want a boyfriend?’
She said: ‘Whenever it went quiet he came back to me and stood close again. He asked me if I was into sports, I said “No”.
‘He said he was into boxing and said feel my stomach. He grabbed my wrist and tried to get me to touch his stomach.'
The pharmacist approached her while she was at the computer at and asked her if she had a boyfriend and how she liked to have sex with him.
A similar incident occurred the following week in which he put his arms around her waist.
One of the incidents happened while Jamil was working at the Cooperative Pharmacy in Fauldhouse, West Lothian (pictured)
A third woman, known as SR, was working at the same pharmacy when Jamil stood close to her that as she bent down to pick up some prescriptions, she could not help but back into him.
She added that he had asked if getting her horses’ castrated had affected the animals’ sex drives and whether it would have the same effect on a man.
He had admitted that all the incidents took place but denied any possible sexual motivation.
Speaking afterwards Graham Edwards, said on behalf of Mr Jamil: ‘I think the panel’s decision was overall correct.
‘Although Mr Jamil had not acted with sexual motivation, and although he had crossed professional boundaries, it is clear that through his insight and his remedial actions and courses followed, the correct decision has been made to assess that he is not impaired.
‘However it must be said that with Mr Jamil’s failure to observe professional boundaries, which brought him to this hearing, it is correct that the panel warned him about his future behaviour.
‘The duration of the inquiry into these matters, being three years, has caused Mr Jamil and his family to be emotionally damaging, at a great deal financial of cost.’