And speaking of bald attempts brings me to the recent case of British Bung Manufacturing Company LTD (BBM) v Finn, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether a claimant had been subjected to harassment focusing on his lack of hair.

Mr Finn worked as an electrician for BBM, a small family business where most employees were male, from September 1997 until his dismissal in 2021.

In July 2019 an altercation arose between Mr Finn and a colleague, Mr King, over the removal of machine covers awaiting specialist repair. Mr King called Mr Finn a “bald c*nt” and threatened him with physical violence. Mr Finn reported this to his supervisor. Mr King later admitted his conduct and was given a warning. No further action was taken and no other incidents occurred until March 2021.

On that date, a further incident arose between Mr Finn and Mr King again whereby Mr King threatened Mr Finn with physical violence. Mr Finn reported this to the managing director and company secretary and stated that he had had enough of the behaviour.

In May 2021, Mr Finn was summarily dismissed from his position at BBM for gross misconduct, but this was unrelated to the current matter. Mr Finn brought claims and alleged that he was subjected to harassment related to sex and was threatened with violence.

The Employment Tribunal upheld Mr Finn’s claim that the incident amounted to harassment related to sex and found that Mr King’s comment was unwanted with the intent to insult and threaten Mr Finn. The Employment Tribunal also held that the comment violated Mr Finn’s dignity and created an intimidating and hostile environment for him. 

BBM appealed this decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and argued that for unwanted conduct to be considered harassment related to sex, it must relate to a matter that is “both inherent to the sex in question and not applicable to the opposite sex.” The EAT rejected this argument and held that it was not supported by legal authority and contradicted the purpose of the EqA. The EAT also found that baldness is a characteristic more commonly associated with men and as such, the remark was inherently linked to sex. 

The case serves as a significant reminder for employers about how language that may have previously been perceived as workplace “banter”, can now have implications of harassment related to sex. Employers should therefore take steps to ensure a culture of mutual respect and inclusion where harassment will not be tolerated. This can be effectively managed by having robust policies in place and regular training of staff on appropriate workplace behaviour.