Workplace Banter: Comments About Being Bald Crossed the [Hair] Line

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Workplace Banter: Comments About Being Bald Crossed the [Hair] Line

Key Contact: Chris Aldridge

A recent Employment Appeal’s Tribunal (EAT) case (Mr A. Finn v. The British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd) confirmed that comments made about Mr. Finn’s appearance (specifically relating to him being bald) amounted to harassment related to sex. 

Mr Finn alleged that during a shopfloor row in July 2019, his manager had referred to him as a “bald c**t”.  Mr Finn had not complained about the use of “industrial language” but was particularly affronted at being called bald, the panel said. Mr. Finn argued that the comment was a form of harassment related to sex (as hair loss is much more prevalent among men). 

The Employment Tribunal agreed with the Tribunal’s original decision, marking a notable interpretation in harassment claims.  In its decision, the Tribunal ruled that referring to a man’s baldness is inherently linked to sex. As hair loss is much more prevalent among men than women, the Tribunal concluded that the using the term to describe someone is a form of sex-related harassment. Commenting on a man’s baldness in the workplace is equivalent to remarking on the size of a woman’s breasts, the finding suggests. The irony wasn’t lost on the all-male Tribunal panel, consisting of a Judge and two wing members who were also ‘follically challenged’.

Finn’s compensation will be determined at a later date.

The Tribunal’s recognition of the term as harassment linked to sex underscores an evolving view of workplace conduct standards. This case highlights that language referencing physical attributes commonly associated with one gender, when used in a negative or hostile context, can meet the threshold for harassment based on sex. Employers should ensure that all workplace interactions avoid derogatory remarks or personal comments that could be perceived as targeting inherent gender-linked characteristics.

The outcome of this case sends a clear message about respecting employee dignity in all forms and signals that the tribunal is prepared to consider nuanced interpretations in workplace harassment claims, particularly where comments touch on attributes closely associated with a particular sex. This decision may encourage workplaces to review training and policies to prevent similar claims and foster an inclusive, respectful environment.

If you need assistance with any employment-related matters, contact our Employment team.

Recent Posts

tenant participation in retrofitting
How to Use the Law Effectively to Achieve Tenant Participation in Retrofitting
November 1, 2024
“To Card or Not to Card: That is the Question”
October 31, 2024
Can Your Sponsored Employee Take on a Second Job?
Can Your Sponsored Employee Take On a Second Job?
October 29, 2024
October Litigation Update: Mandatory ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’
October 25, 2024
Business Tenancies: The Right to Renew
October 24, 2024
Unfair Dismissal and the Employment Rights Bill
October 24, 2024

Archives

Categories

Skip to content