Can Calling A Man ‘Bald’ At Work Amount To Sex-Related Harassment?

The simple answer is ‘yes’, according to an Employment Tribunal in the case of Mr A Finn v The British Bung Manufacturing Company Limited.

Mr A Finn v The British Bung Manufacturing Company Limited

Case background

Mr Finn (the “Claimant”) was employed by The British Bung Manufacturing Company Limited (the “Respondent”) as an electrician between 22^nd September 1997 and 25 May 2021, when he was dismissed from his employment without notice.

At the end of July 2019, the Claimant got into a dispute with one of his colleagues, Mr J King, during which Mr King called the Claimant a “bald c***” and made violent threats towards him. At that time, the Claimant chose not to take any formal action in respect of Mr King’s conduct because of Mr King’s personal circumstances. However, in March 2021, Mr King further threatened the Claimant.

It was alleged that the Claimant falsely suggested to Mr King that he had brought these matters to the attention of the police and two months later, the Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent on grounds of gross misconduct.

The Claimant brought several claims in the Employment Tribunal, including a claim for harassment on the grounds of sex under the Equality Act 2010.

The judgment

The Claimant was successful in his claims and we discuss the Employment Tribunal’s findings in respect of his harassment claim in particular below.

The Employment Tribunal ruled that Mr King referring to the Claimant as a “bald c***” was conduct that was unwanted and which had the purpose of violating the Claimant’s dignity and created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for the Claimant, such as to satisfy the legal definition of harassment.

However, it should be noted that in order for that claim to be successful, the Claimant must then establish a causal link between the harassment and the relevant protected characteristic (i.e. that the comment from Mr King related to his sex). This required the Employment Tribunal to analyse the precise words used, together with the context in which those were said.

Having given the matter consideration, the Employment Tribunal found there was a connection that relates the word “bald” to the protected characteristic of sex. Whilst the Respondent argued that women can also be bald, the Employment Tribunal stated that ‘baldness is much more prevalent in men than women’ and, therefore, the person on the receiving end of such a remark would be male.

Comment

Clearly much will depend on the circumstances of a particular case, but this case serves as a useful reminder of how important it is for employers to take ‘reasonable’ steps to prevent harassment in the workplace in order to minimise the risk of them being held vicariously liable for acts of harassment of their employees.

This case is also a good reminder, particularly for employers in sectors where offensive language or ‘banter’ between colleagues at work is quite common, that this can result in an Employment Tribunal claim being brought against the company (and compensation being payable in cases where those claims succeed). Cases such as these also tend to attract media attention, resulting in reputational damage to companies and potentially affecting future recruitment, as well as retention of existing staff.

We would advise employers to introduce clear policies on workplace bullying and harassment and keep those under regular review. Those policies should be circulated to all staff and training provided on those so that staff are aware of what will be considered to be unacceptable conduct and the steps that should be taken to raise and deal with any matters of concern.