It should be uncontroversial to state that what we want to be called – or do not want to be called – should be respected. This simple enough principle is what defined the grievance between NHS co-workers Ilda Esteves and her colleague Charles Oppong.

Last week, an employment tribunal ruled in Esteves’ favour, agreeing she was subjected to harassment from Oppong for his repeated references to her as “auntie”. The healthcare assistant was awarded £1,425 in compensation.

The tribunal heard that Oppong defended his actions by claiming “auntie” was, in his Ghanaian culture, a term of respect for older women. But Esteves, 61, had asked him to stop. He did not.

It went further than the unwanted name. Oppong also suggested, the tribunal heard, that an older colleague would be a “good match” for Esteves: this was clearly a case of inappropriate over-familiarity.

The dispute is perhaps especially charged because the workplace sharpens the gulf between what is learned behaviour from home and what is appropriate in our shared spaces, such as school or work. Habits we have been raised to see as harmless – be that a jokey manner, the liberal use of expletives in our sentences or, as in this case, the title used to address our colleagues – can be read very differently.

This is why, despite........

© The Guardian