A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal reminds employers to take a broad-brush approach when considering whether conduct is related to a protected characteristic. Conduct which might not immediately appear to be related to a protected characteristic may still be so.
Finn v British Bung Manufacturing Company
In Finn v British Bung Manufacturing Company, an employee who worked in a male-dominated environment where harsh language was common had a dispute with a colleague about machinery. In the confrontation, the colleague threatened violence and insulted him by calling him a “bald c**t”. When the employee was later dismissed, he filed claims for unfair dismissal and sex-related harassment due to the comment about his baldness.
The Employment Tribunal ruled in his favour on the harassment claim. They decided that the comment about his baldness was clearly personal, intended to insult and create a hostile environment. They also said that, because baldness is more common in men, the insult was sex-related.
The company appealed, arguing that since baldness can affect both men and women, it should not be considered sex-related harassment. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that harassment does not have to be exclusive to one gender to be related to sex.
Employers can avoid cases like this by having robust policies and practices in place. Hunter Law is here to help.
Further reading
ACAS urges employers to act now on sexual harassment | Acas
Employer 8-step guide: Preventing sexual harassment at work | EHRC
New protections from sexual harassment come into force – GOV.UK
If you enjoyed this blog then perhaps you’d like to sign up to our monthly newsletter. We’ll keep you updated on what’s new in employment law.
The team at Hunter Law is here for you. We can handle your HR issues, finesse your policies, and keep you up-to-date on evolving legislation. Please get in touch with our legal team, we’d love to help.
