Baldness is not a disability

A bald high school teacher has lost a court case because the judge ruled that his lack of hair was not a disability - despite his pleas to the contrary.

James Campbell, formerly an art teacher at Denny High School in Stirlingshire, took Falkirk Council to a Glasgow employment tribunal, which was told he had suffered harassment from pupils.

He said the taunts impacted on his day-to-day activities.

Mr Campbell, who is also claiming constructive and unfair dismissal against the council, said pupils perceived baldness as being a weakness.

He said: "My baldness has had a substantial and long term adverse effect on my ability to do my job.

"How can I stand in front of a class with confidence to get on with my job when I am getting teased and bullied about baldness, when I think they are laughing at me all the time."

Mr Campbell,  said he did his best to avoid corridors, where he would meet pupils who shouted "baldy" at him, and left school late every day to "avoid the kids".

The teacher claimed that because the children were prepared to call him names to his face he was always concerned that they could also assault him.

"I left school later at night after the bell went to avoid the kids. That's when I got all the bullying and teasing."

Mr Campbell, 61, who lives in Stirlingshire, told the tribunal that while baldness might seem trivial or unimportant to some, the effect it had on him was severe.

Falkirk Council argued that baldness was not a physical or mental impairment and was therefore not covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.

His fear or concern arose due to the reaction of some others to his baldness.

No depression or other medical condition was said to exist as a result of baldness or its impact on him.

Rejecting Mr Campbell's disability claim tribunal judge Robert Gall said "I am of the view that baldness is not an impairment.

"It seems to me to take the definition of impairment too far."

He added that if baldness was to be regarded as an impairment then a physical feature such as a big nose might also be regarded as an impairment under the DDA.

He said: "That, to me, cannot be right."

Mr Campbell's constructive and unfair dismissal claim against the council will go ahead at a later date.