Calling a man “bald” as an insult is sexual harassment, a labor court ruled.
Hair loss is much more common among men than women, so using it to describe someone is a form of discrimination, a judge concluded.
Commenting on a man’s baldness in the workplace is tantamount to a remark about women’s breast size, they suggest.
The decision – taken by a group of three men who, in making their judgment, complain about their own lack of hair – comes in a case between a veteran electrician and the employers of his manufacturing company.
Tony Finn – who is now in line for compensation – worked for the West Yorkshire-based British Bung Company for almost 24 years when he was fired last May.
He took them to the tribunal, claiming, among other things, that he had been sexually harassed after an incident with factory supervisor Jamie King.
Mr Finn claims that during a store scandal that nearly erupted in violence in July 2019, Mr King called him a “bald dude”.
The tribunal heard that Mr Finn was less upset by the Anglo-Saxon language than by the commentary on his appearance.
The allegation led the panel, led by Judge Jonathan Brain, to discuss whether the remark about his baldness was just an insult or harassment.
“We have no doubt that mentioning this in a humiliating way is unwanted behavior as far as (Mr Finn) is concerned,” the tribunal found.
“It’s a strong language. Although, as we find, industrial language was the usual site of the West Yorkshire plant, in our view Mr King crossed the border by making personal remarks to the applicant about his appearance. ‘
Mr Finn did not complain about the use of “industrial language”, but was “particularly offended” that he was called bald, the commission said.
“It is difficult to draw a conclusion, except that Mr. King uttered these words in order to break [Mr Finn’s] dignity and the creation of an embarrassing, hostile, humiliating, humiliating or insulting environment for him, “the sentence said.
“By his own admission, Mr. King’s intention was to threaten [Mr Finn] and insult him.
“In our opinion, there is a connection between the word ‘bald’ on the one hand and the protected characteristic of sex, on the other.
“[The company’s lawyer] he was right to say that women, like men, could be bald. However, as the three members of the tribunal will ensure, baldness is much more common in men than in women.
“We find it inherent in sex.”
As part of its decision, the panel raised a previous case before a tribunal in which a man was found to have sexually harassed a woman, noting the size of her breasts to disprove the company’s claim.
“One is much more likely to receive a comment like the one that was made [that] the case will be female, “the tribunal said.
“Also, a person who receives a remark like the one made by Mr. King is much more likely to be a man.
“Mr King made the remark in order to injure the plaintiff, commenting on his appearance, which is common among men.
The Tribunal therefore finds that calling the plaintiff a “bald devil” . “
Describing the dispute with Mr King, who is 30 years his junior, Mr Finn told a tribunal in Sheffield, South Yorkshire: “I was working on a machine that I had to cover in anticipation of a specialist repair. The lids were removed and it was obvious that Jamie King had done that.
“When I talked to him about it, he started calling me a stupid old bald dude and threatened to ‘decorate’ me.”
Mr Finn said he had been left “fearing for my personal safety”.
The tribunal heard that he then wrote a statement about the incident with his son Robert, who was a police officer, in an official document of the West Yorkshire police.
When this was handed over to his bosses at the company – a family business that makes traditional wooden barrel caps for the brewery – they initially believed he had reported the incident as a crime.
Mr Finn told them he did not intend the statement to look like an official police document. However, the company accused him of trying to intimidate them and fired him for misconduct.
In addition to confirming his claim of sexual harassment, the tribunal ruled that the company fired him unfairly because instead of waiting to hear from police after they complained about his son’s involvement – as promised – they fired him two working days later. late.
Judge Brain said: “Mr Stear and Mr Taylor are not criminal lawyers. They are not police officers. In our opinion, for the offended but unprepared eye, the statement has all the hallmarks that it was made before the West Yorkshire police in connection with the investigation of an alleged crime.
Mr Finn has indeed won lawsuits for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, harm and sexual harassment.
He lost an additional claim for age discrimination after the tribunal ruled that Mr King did not call him “old” but simply “bald with **”.
Mr Finn’s compensation will be determined at a later date. However, any payment will be reduced once the tribunal has ruled that he contributed to his dismissal through his conduct.
Add Comment