Calling a man 'bald' IS sexual harassment, High Court rules

Calling a man 'bald' is considered sexual harassment, the High Court has ruled.

In a recently released full judgement, a judge said that using the word about a man could breach equality laws because it is 'inherently related to sex'.

It follows a lengthy legal case brought by electrician Tony Finn who claimed he had been sexually harassed during a heated row at British Bung Company in 2019.

The employee claimed he was the victim of discrimination after supervisor Jamie King had called him a 'bald c***' during an argument on the shop floor.

Mr Finn took the West Yorkshire-based manufacturing group to an Employment Appeals Tribunal after he was dismissed  in 2021.

Mr. Finn saw the tribunal rule in his favour in February 2022. Although his former employers immediately appealed this decision.

However, in November 2023, the tribunal dismissed the British Bung Company's appeal, which centred on the argument that because both men and women can be bald - through choice or illness - that using the word in relation to a man could not be in breach of equality laws.

Overseeing the appeals process, Mrs. Justice Naomi Ellenbogen DBE stated that Mr. King's baldness remarks were 'inherently related to sex'. 

Read More

Calling a man 'bald' is sex harassment after employment tribunal compares it to commenting on a woman's breasts... as electrician called 'bald c***' by supervisor is set to win compensation for having 'dignity violated'

Justice Ellenbogen's ruling, which has just been published in full, now paves the way for Mr. Finn to receive compensation more than five years after he was first insulted. 

The February 2022 ruling saw Mr. Finn win claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal, whilst also being subjected to detriments and sex harassment relating to the baldness comment directed at him from Mr. King.

Appealing that decision, Mr. Finn's former employers argued that; 'In order to be related to sex, it would have to apply to that sex to the exclusion of the other.

'Even if it were the case that 99 per cent of those who were bald were male, the existence of the one percent who were female would mean that the act of which complaint was made could not be related to sex.

'Baldness is not related to sex as both men and women can be bald, as, no doubt, women with alopecia, those receiving chemotherapy and others who shave their heads for a variety of religious or cultural reasons could vouchsafe'.

But, in the now published judgement, Justice Ellenbogen's rationale behind rejecting the British Bung Company's appeal can be viewed in full.

Justice Ellenbogen agreed with the assertion that commenting on a man's baldness in the workplace is the equivalent to remarking on the size of a woman's breasts.

'In concluding, rightly, that baldness is more prevalent in men, the tribunal was not importing questions of disparate adverse impact into its reasoning.

'Rather it was recognising the fact that the characteristic by reference to which Mr King had chosen to abuse [Mr Finn] was more prevalent in people of [Mr Finn]’s gender, more likely to be directed at such people, and, as such, inherently related to sex', Justice Ellenbogen stated.

Two other grounds of appeal were also rejected by the High Court judge.

Mr. Finn’s compensation is yet to be revealed. However, any pay out will be reduced after the tribunal ruled he had contributed to his dismissal through his conduct.