Employment Tribunal in UK holds calling man "bald" is harassment related to sex

In an interesting judgment widening the ambit of sexual harassment, an Employment Tribunal in the United Kingdom (UK) has ruled that calling a man "bald" is harassment related to his sex. .Employment Judge Brain opined that there is a connection between the word “bald” on the one hand and the protected characteristic of a person's sex (gender) on the other. The judgment, rendered by a panel of three men, referred to their own baldness while holding that baldness, being more common among adult men, is a protected characteristic of sex, but not of age. "In our judgment, there is a connection between the word “bald” on the one hand and the protected characteristic of sex on the other.... 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 sex. (In contrast, we accept that baldness affects (predominantly) adult males of all ages so is inherently not a characteristic of age)".The allegation was that the employer had called his employee 'bald ****'. The judgment drew parallels between the current instance of an employer calling his employee a "bald ****" to previous instances where a case of sexual harassment was established due to a single remark about the size of a woman's breasts."Mr King (the employer) 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 ****” on July 24, 2019 Mr King’s conduct was unwanted, it was a violation of the claimant’s dignity, it created an intimidating etc environment for him, it was done for that purpose, and it related to the claimant’s sex. The complaint of harassment related to sex is meritorious. The claimant is entitled to remedy provided the Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to consider it", the judgment stated..The judgment came in a case between an electrician, Tony Finn, and the manufacturing firm where he was employed for nearly 34 years.After he was dismissed from his job, Finn brought complaints against the employer under the Equality Act, 2010. He claimed, among other things, that the factory supervisor in particular, Jamie King, had called him a "bald ****" which would amount to harssment related to his sex under Section 26 of the Equality Act . King did not dispute the allegation. .The tribunal, in its judgment, mooted on several grounds, whether remarks on Finns baldness was a mere insult or harassment. Judge Brain noted that the firm, which was incorporated in 1882, had a small workforce of mostly men and that "industrial language" was common place upon the shop floor.However, since it found that King said the words “bald ****” with the purpose of violating the claimant’s dignity and a protected characteristic of sex, the tribunal ruled that the claim of harassment related to sex is meritorious. The tribunal will determine the compensation owed to Finn at a later date but said in conclusion that "it is in the public interest that such complaints are considered and adjudicated upon and that wrongdoers are held to account.".[Read Judgment]