An employment tribunal has found that calling a man “bald” as an insult constituted s*xual harassment. Hair loss is significantly more common in men than in women, thus using it to describe someone is discriminatory, according to a judge.

They suggested that remarking on a man’s baldness in the workplace is akin to remarking on the size of a woman’s chest.

The decision came in a dispute involving a veteran electrician and his manufacturing firm employers and was determined by a panel of three men who mourned their own loss of hair when making their decision.

Tony Finn, who is now seeking compensation, had worked for the British Bung Company in West Yorkshire for over 24 years before he was fired in May of last year.

He took them to court, claiming, among other things, that he had been the victim of s*x harassment as a result of an event with manufacturing supervisor Jamie King.

Mr. Finn claimed that Mr. King called him a “bald c***” during a shop floor brawl that nearly became violent in July 2019.

The ‘Anglo Saxon’ terminology affected Mr. Finn less than the statement on his appearance, according to the tribunal.

The panel, led by Judge Jonathan Brain, debated whether remarking on his baldness was simply disrespectful or truly harassment as a result of the claim.

“We have little doubt that being referred to in this pejorative manner was unwanted conduct as far as (Mr. Finn) was concerned,” the tribunal found.

“This is strong language. Although, as we find, industrial language was commonplace on this West Yorkshire factory floor, in our judgment Mr. King crossed the line by making remarks personal to the claimant about his appearance.”

Mr. Finn had not objected to the usage of “industrial terminology,” but was “especially offended” when he was called bald, according to the panel.

“It is difficult to conclude other than that Mr. King uttered those words with the purpose of violating [Mr. Finn’s] dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him,” the judgment found.

“Of his own admission, Mr. King’s intention was to threaten [Mr. 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 s*x on the other.

“[The company’s lawyer] was right to submit that women, as well as men, may be bald. However, as all three members of the tribunal will vouchsafe, baldness is much more prevalent in men than women.

“We find it to be inherently related to s*x.”

“It is much more likely that a person on the receiving end of a comment such as that which was made in [that] case would be female,” the tribunal said.

“So too, it is much more likely that a person on the receiving end of a remark such as that made by Mr. King would be male.

“Mr. King made the remark with a view to hurting 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***’…Mr. 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 s*x.”

Mr. Finn told the tribunal: “I was working on a machine that I had to cover awaiting specialist repair. The covers were taken off, and it was apparent that Jamie King had done this.

“When I spoke to him about it, he began to call me a stupid old bald c*** and threatened to ‘deck me.'”

Mr. Finn stated that he was concerned about his personal safety.

He then prepared a statement on the official West Yorkshire Police paper regarding the event with his son Robert, who was a police officer, according to the tribunal.

When his superiors at the firm – a family business that builds traditional wooden cask closures for the brewing industry – received this, they initially mistook him for a criminal.

Mr. Finn explained that he did not intend for the statement to appear like an official police document. However, he was fired for misconduct when the firm accused him of attempting to intimidate them.

In addition to sustaining his s*x harassment claim, the tribunal concluded that the corporation had fired him unfairly because, rather than waiting for police to respond to their complaint about his son’s involvement, they fired him two working days later.

“Mr. Steer and Mr. Taylor are not criminal lawyers,” Judge Brain added. They are not officers of the law. The statement has all the signs of having been given to West Yorkshire Police in connection with an alleged crime, in our opinion, to the educated but untrained eye.

Mr. Finn was victorious in his claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, detriment, and s*x harassment.

Source: dailymail.co.uk