A workplace dispute in northern England became the center of a notable employment tribunal ruling after a supervisor insulted a longtime employee. The issue wasn’t the profanity in the remark; it was the reference to being bald.
The confrontation on a West Yorkshire factory floor led a U.K. employment tribunal to examine whether a comment about a man’s baldness could constitute harassment related to sex. The tribunal concluded that it could, citing the fact that baldness is far more common in men than women and therefore can be treated as connected to the protected characteristic of sex under UK law.
How A Shopfloor Argument Became a Significant Case
Image via iStockphoto/pixelfit
Tony Finn, an electrician who had worked at the British Bung Manufacturing Company for nearly 24 years, clashed with shift supervisor Jamie King during a dispute in July 2019.
During the exchange, King referred to Finn as a “bald [expletive].” While strong language was common on the factory floor, Finn argued that this insult went beyond ordinary workplace profanity because it targeted his appearance.
Finn was later dismissed in 2021 and brought claims before an employment tribunal, including harassment related to sex. The panel agreed with Finn, finding that the remark was unwanted, personal, and intended to threaten and insult him.
Why Baldness Was Treated as Sex-Related
Image via Canva/Magenta
According to the tribunal’s judgment, baldness is “much more prevalent in men than women,” which makes it inherently connected to sex for the Equality Act 2010. To reinforce their reasoning, the panel referenced a previous tribunal case in which a comment about a woman’s breasts was found to be discriminatory.
They noted that both situations involved insults aimed at physical traits overwhelmingly associated with one sex. The tribunal determined that King’s remark violated Finn’s dignity and created an intimidating and hostile work environment. Compensation for Finn will be addressed separately.
Harassment related to sex under UK law does not require any sexual element or intent. The decisive factor is whether unwanted conduct connected to sex has the purpose or effect of creating a degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. In Finn’s case, the tribunal said King admitted he intended to threaten and insult him.
What the Ruling Means
Public reaction was oversimplified, as if there were a total ban on making bald jokes. However, the tribunal did not declare all comments about baldness to be harassment. Instead, its conclusion was specific to this case. The decision simply now stands as a detailed example of how conduct related to appearance and sex can meet the threshold for harassment under existing UK law.