Partner Article

Baldness is not a disability

With Watson Burton LLP Law Firm

An interesting case was brought before the Scottish Employment Tribunal in the case of Campbell v Falkirk Council (EAT(S)/136261/07) where a teacher claimed that his baldness was a disability.

The Law

Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, a disability is a mental or physical impairment with a substantial and long term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

The Claim

Mr Campbell claimed that the pupils in his school regularly teased and tormented him about his baldness, often calling him “baldy”. He claimed that they perceived his baldness as a fault or an impairment.

Due to their taunting, Mr Campbell had lost his confidence in his ability to teach, and would avoid places or corridors where he might meet his pupils. He feared that if they were prepared to call him “baldy” to his face, they might go so far as to assault him. As a result, Mr Campbell claimed that his baldness affected his perception of the risk of physical danger and so adversely affected his daily activities.

The Decision

The judge held that baldness was not an impairment when considering the legislation, the guidance, previous case law and the ordinary meaning of the word “impairment”. The judge held that baldness was instead “an aspect of physical appearance.” However, it was implied that the outcome might have been different if his baldness had been the symptom of another illness or had resulted in an illness, such as depression due to the taunting he suffered.

Further, the judge felt that Mr Campbell’s diminished confidence and concern at being in parts of the school did not constitute a substantial effect on his daily activities. He also noted that the phrase “normal day-to-day activities” was not intended to include activities which were normal only for a particular person.

With regards to the claim that his perception of the risk of danger was affected, the judge felt that Mr Campbell had misinterpreted the phrase. He commented that Mr Campbell’s perception was actually affected by the reaction of the pupils to his baldness, and his interpretation of their actions as meaning they might attack him. The judge did not see this as a direct enough link with his baldness to satisfy the requirements of the legislation.

This case provides further guidance on what will (and will not) be classed as a disability under the legislation.

If you have any queries relating to this article, please contact Lucy Bond at Watson Burton LLP via email at lucy.bond@watsonburton.com or by telephone on 0113 235 5606.

This was posted in Bdaily's Members' News section by Ruth Mitchell .