In a sexual harassment prevention session I ran last week, someone brought up the recent โbald insultโ case (Tony Finn v. British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd). Since then, I’ve also noticed misinformation circulating on social media, so here’s the clarification.
In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that calling a male employee “bald” constituted sex-based harassment, not sexual harassment. The tribunal determined that such comments are inherently related to sex because baldness is statistically more prevalent in men than in women.
This ruling underscores the importance of understanding that harassment related to a person’s sex โ regardless of whether it involves sexual content โ can still be unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.
Under the Equality Act 2010:
โข ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐น ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ = unwanted conduct of a sexual nature (e.g., sexual jokes, advances, touching)
โข ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐
-๐ฏ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ = unwanted conduct related to someoneโs sex โ not sexual in nature, but tied to gender
The inappropriate comment wasnโt sexual โ but it was linked to a protected characteristic (sex).
The media calling it โsexual harassmentโ makes for clickable headlines, but itโs legally inaccurate and fuels confusion.
For practitioners, this distinction matters โ especially when:
โข Training teams
โข Investigating complaints
โข Writing policy
ย
If we want people to recognise harassment and act on it, we have to get the language right.
For a detailed legal perspective, you can read the full judgment here: British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd & King v Finn Judgment: https://lnkd.in/gysBH3fd
ย
ย
Author: Jenna Randall | Date 25/07/2025