Friday May 13 2022
Web Desk

Court rules calling men 'bald' is sexual harassment

Web Desk
An employment tribunal has ruled calling men bald is sexual harassment. — Unsplash/@gustavo0351
An employment tribunal has ruled calling men "bald" is sexual harassment. — Unsplash/@gustavo0351

  • Employment tribunal rules calling men "bald" sexual harassment.
  • Ruling issued by panel comprising three men with lack of hair.
  • They say they found insult "inherently related to sex.”

An employment tribunal has ruled calling men "bald" is tantamount to sexual harassment, The Guardian reported.

The ruling was given by a panel comprising three men who mourned over their lack of hair. 

It started when Tony Finn was fired from a company he had worked for a period of 24 years. He alleged that his supervisor, Jamie King, had called him a "bald c*nt". 

Finn told the tribunal that he was less hurt by the abuse and more upset about the remark about his appearance. 

The allegation sparked the discussion on whether calling someone bald is simply insulting or can be counted as harassment. A panel was created which was led by Judge Jonathan Brain.

“We have little doubt that being referred to in this pejorative manner was unwanted conduct as far as [Finn] was concerned,” The Guardian quoted the tribunal as saying. 

“In our judgment, King crossed the line by making remarks personal to the claimant about his appearance," said the panel.

The panel said that they found a connection between calling someone bald and a person's sex.

“Of his own admission, King’s intention was to threaten [Finn] and to insult him. In our judgment, there is a connection between the word ‘bald’ on the one hand and the protected characteristic of sex on the other."

They said that they found the insult "inherently related to sex.”

On the basis that the supervisor made the remark to hurt the claimant by commenting on his appearance which is often found amongst men.

“The tribunal, therefore, determines that by referring to the claimant as a ‘bald c*nt’ … King’s conduct was unwanted, it was a violation of the claimant’s dignity, it created an intimidating environment for him, it was done for that purpose, and it related to the claimant’s sex.”