Jumpy Numpty Had A Great Fall: workplace insults and discrimination
Posted on 28th April 2025 at 12:29
“Calling a colleague a ‘numpty’ is not discrimination” – another newspaper headline reporting on a tribunal outcome. Should we have needed judicial confirmation at all, some may think?
On this occasion, within the report of Kalar v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, it involved a phone call in which the term was either used once or twice by Mr Kalar’s Chief Inspector. Mr Kalar asserted that the term had racial or disability connotations, related to his protected acts and disclosures, and comprised harassment. CI Davies said that she used it affectionately and in a “don’t be so silly” manner.
The tribunal accepted CI Davies’ version, and noted that Mr Kalar’s perception was more a result of his heightened sensitivity about race and disability issues. This was against a background where the tribunal had been faced with the need to determine his 271 separate allegations, taking 28 days in the course of trial and deliberations to do so, and rejected all of them. It noted that Mr Kalar’s “scattergun approach” had been focused upon creating potential evidence for a legal claim.
The Telegraph journalist subsequently noted that “numpty” could be traced back to the 18th century as a term of mocking endearment for a cuckolded husband, and that the Oxford English Dictionary defined it as “a stupid or foolish person, an idiot”.
We have had our own experience of such situations, notably ahead of trial. A number of legal authorities have cited the tendency of some claimants to view everything through a prism of discrimination, whatever the protected characteristic in question. Using these authorities, we have taken the opportunity to produce costs warning letters for respondent clients once the tribunal evidence round has closed. One such letter recently brought our clients a £3,750 award, very much an exception to the norm where tribunal participants must ordinarily bear their own costs.
Whether the Met may have addressed Mr Kalar’s claims in similar fashion is unknown. Arguably, the merits of doing so would have been considerably stronger, in circumstances where the prism of discrimination was said to have been used deliberately and in an agenda driven manner rather than naively.
There may sometimes be scope to put down a marker for a future costs warning much earlier, indeed within the course of an internal grievance process if there is any hint of an agenda being pursued. We can help an employer strike the right balance in doing so. Contact David Cooper on 0121 325 5402 or via dmc@coxcooper.co.uk .
Tagged as: disability discrimination, harassment, prism of discrimination, protected act, protected disclosure, race discrimination
Share this post: