But let's take this across the pond. Would a U.S. court agree?
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, harassment must be tied to a protected characteristic (like sex) and be severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. So, what would happen if Finn's case landed in an American courtroom?
1. Baldness isn't a protected characteristic: In the U.S., the argument that baldness is tied to sex might not carry the same weight. Courts are more likely to view baldness as a neutral physical trait rather than a gender-based issue.
2. Severity or pervasiveness: Title VII requires more than a single insult. One crude comment about someone's baldness—even if tied to gender—might not meet the threshold for unlawful harassment. It's wrong, sure, but likely not actionable on its own.
3. The workplace context: U.S. courts examine the bigger picture. Was this part of a pattern of demeaning comments targeting men? Did it affect Finn's ability to work? Without clear evidence of a hostile environment, the case would likely struggle to get traction here.
For me, the real question isn't whether a court would rule the same—it's what kind of workplace tolerates behavior like this in the first place. Whether you're bald, tall, short, or anything in between, personal insults have no place in a professional setting. Sure, our laws set a high bar for what constitutes harassment; Title VII isn't a "workplace civility code." But waiting for something to become "severe or pervasive" before addressing it is a terrible strategy for any employer.
Here's the takeaway: good workplace culture means shutting down inappropriate comments before they escalate. After all, fostering respect isn't just about avoiding lawsuits—it's about doing the right thing.