Calling a man “bald” as an insult is sexual discrimination, a High Court judge has ruled.
Mrs Justice Dame Naomi Ellenbogen based her judgement on the fact hair loss is much “more prevalent” among men than women.
During a lengthy legal case it was argued that because females can also be bald that using the word in relation to a man could not be in breach of equality laws.
But Mrs Justice Ellenbogen dismissed the claim and said that commenting on a man’s hair loss was “inherently related to sex”.
The decision at the Employment Appeals Tribunal was handed down last November but the full judgement has only just been published in full.
The decision angered Daily Express columnist and Talk Radio presenter James Whale who has been bald since the age of 18 and branded it “ridiculous”.
He said: “I didn’t think these ridiculous woke laws could get any worse.
“People who are so easily offended by being called fat, thin, ugly or bald need to grow a pair.
“This whole business of not being able to either tease or insult people without being called a bully is ridiculous.
“The fact I have no hair and haven’t had any since I was 18 has never bothered me one jot.
“Clearly some people get offended at anything, including the way somebody looks at them.
“It has to stop and for a judge to rule that calling somebody “bald” could be a sexual discrimination means the judge is incompetent and needs removing from the bench.
“Let’s everybody get over being offended so easily and grow up.”
The ruling cleared the way for veteran electrician Tony Finn to receive compensation more than four years after he was first insulted.
The initial tribunal judgement, made by a panel of three men who in coming to their decision mentioned their own lack of hair, came in the case between Mr Finn and his manufacturing firm employers.
Mr Finn had worked for the West Yorkshire-based British Bung Company for almost 24 years when he was fired in May 2021.
He took them to a tribunal claiming, among other things, that he had been the victim of sex discrimination following an incident with factory supervisor Jamie King.
Mr Finn alleged that during a shop floor row which almost erupted into violence in July 2019, Mr King had referred to him as a “bald c***”.
In February 2022 he won claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, being subjected to detriments and sexual discrimination for the bald comment.
His former employers appealed the decision but Mrs Justice Ellenbogen agreed with the original tribunal finding.
Making her ruling and dismissing the appeal, she said: “In concluding, rightly, that baldness is more prevalent in men, the tribunal was…recognising the fact that the characteristic by which Mr King had chosen to abuse [Mr Finn] was…inherently related to sex.”
The business also said the panel had wrongly likened their argument about baldness to claiming that commenting on the size of a woman’s breasts was not discriminatory because men can also have ‘man boobs’.
The tribunal had cited a sex harassment case in which a male worker had remarked to a female colleague ‘Hiya Big Tits’.
In response Mrs Justice Ellenbogen continued: “The tribunal was pointing out that the logic of [the employer’s] position was that the fact that men who had a certain medical condition would also have the characteristic to which the comment made in that case had related, meant that it could not be said that the term ‘Hiya Big Tits’ was related to sex.”
She rejected the firm’s argument, found against the employer and two other grounds of appeal were also rejected.
Mr Finn’s compensation is yet to be revealed. However, any pay out will be reduced after the tribunal ruled he had contributed to his dismissal through his conduct.
