Calling a man ‘bald’ IS sexual harassment, judge rules as hairless sparky insulted by supervisor set for payout

CALLING a man “bald” is sexual harassment, a high court judge has ruled after an electrician was insulted by his boss.

As hair loss much is “more prevalent” among men than women, the top judge found using it as an insult is a form of discrimination.

During a lengthy legal case, it was argued that because some females can also be bald – through choice or illness – using the word in relation to a man could not be in breach of equality laws.

However, Mrs Justice Naomi Ellenbogen DBE dismissed this claim and said that such a comment is “inherently related to sex”.

The decision at the Employment Appeals Tribunal was handed down last November but the full judgment has only just been published.

The ruling clears the way for Tony Finn to receive compensation, more than four years after he was first insulted.

The initial tribunal judgement – made by a panel of three men who in making their judgement bemoaned their own lack of hair – came in the case between the veteran electrician and his manufacturing firm employers.

Mr Finn had worked for the West Yorkshire-based British Bung Company for almost 24 years when he was fired in May 2021.

He took them to a tribunal claiming, among other things, that he had been the victim of sex harassment following an incident with factory supervisor Jamie King.

Mr Finn alleged that during a shop floor row which almost erupted into violence in July 2019, Mr King had referred to him as a “bald c***”.

The allegation resulted in the panel – led by Judge Jonathan Brain – deliberating on whether remarking on his baldness was simply insulting or actually harassment.

In February 2022 he won claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, being subjected to detriments and sex harassment – for the bald comment.

His former employers appealed the decision.

At the London hearing, the business‘s lawyer had argued: “In order to be related to sex, it would have to apply to that sex to the exclusion of the other.”

But Mrs Justice Ellenbogen rejected the argument, agreeing with the original tribunal finding that suggested that commenting on a man’s baldness in the workplace is equivalent to remarking on the size of a woman’s breasts.

Making her ruling and dismissing the appeal, she said: “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.”

The high court judge said the appeal ran “contrary to the purpose of [The Equality Act]”.

The business also argued it was contradictory for the panel to have found commenting on a man’s baldness in the workplace is equivalent to remarking on the size of a woman’s breasts – if men can suffer from gynaecomastia.

The tribunal had cited a sex harassment case in which a male worker had remarked to a female colleague “Hiya Big Tits”.

Two other grounds of appeal were also rejected.

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.