A tribunal has found that the light-hearted insult ‘numpty’, which usually means silly or foolish, is not discriminatory, because it does not have any “racial or disability connotations”
Calling a colleague a “numpty” is allowed as it is not discrimination, an employment judge has ruled.
The word “numpty” dates back to 1733 and is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “a stupid or foolish person; an idiot”. It is particularly popular in Scotland and was once found to be the nation’s favourite word. It is often used in an endearing way to poke fun at someone.
Employment Judge Richard Nicolle’s ruling on the word came as he presided over the case of a long-serving Met police sergeant – who sued for discrimination over a chief inspector using it to describe him.
Sonny Kalar, who was with the Met for 30 years, said he was offended when Chief Inspector Marlise Davies twice called him “numpty”. But Judge Nicolle, sitting at London Central Employment Tribunal, said CI Davies used it in a “lighthearted manner” and that it does not amount to discrimination.
According to recent research conducted by King’s College London, the origins of the word “numpty” can be traced back to the 18th century. Evidence found it was first used in a play in 1733, as a “term of mocking endearment for a cuckolded husband”.
The word is said to be derived from “numps”, a 16th-century term for someone who is as silly or stupid. Mr Kalar joined the Met in June 1993 and eventually retired in June 2023. At the employment tribunal, he brought a series of claims including race discrimination and harassment, disability discrimination and harassment, victimisation, and whistle-blowing detriment.
He made wide-ranging allegations against senior officers within the Met, claiming there was a “collective witch hunt” against him. In total, he made a staggering 271 individual allegations. All of them were dismissed. One of his allegations was that CI Davies, chief inspector in the SO15 Borders Counter Terrorism Command, discriminated against him by calling him “numpty”.
The tribunal heard CI Davies had called Mr Kalar, a sergeant, while he was on sick leave recovering from a knee operation, and during the conversation used the phrase “living the dream”. The tribunal heard: “[Mr Kalar] referred to a telephone conversation of approximately one hour on 15 July 2022. He recorded that he took exception to her ‘living the dream’ comment which he says was aimed at him and that it was not a dream but a nightmare due to suffering with his disabilities and health issues.
“CI Davies says that the comment was not made in relation to [Mr Kalar] but due to the condition of the building at [St Pancras International], with water running down the walls. [Mr Kalar] then referred to her twice having called him ‘numpty’. CI Davies accepts using the term, once not twice, but said that it was used as an affectionate term, as in ‘don’t be so silly’, rather than in a disparaging manner. Nevertheless, she apologised to [Mr Kalar].”
Judge Nicolle said: “We accept CI Davies’ evidence that the comment was made during her call with [Mr Kalar] on 15 July 2022 in a lighthearted manner. We reject his assertion that it had anything to do with his [whistle-blowing]. We do not consider that the term ‘numpty’ has any racial or disability connotations and in the context that it was used, in what we considered to be a lighthearted manner, not one which was capable of constituting harassment when looked at objectively.
“We acknowledge [Mr Kalar] may subjectively have perceived the comment to be directed at him and to be disparaging but consider it relates to his heightened sensitivity rather than how the comments would be objectively viewed. We take account of the fact that CI Davies in her use of language… uses informal, arguably self-deprecating and humorous language. We do not consider given the context in which these comments were made, that they were intended, or could reasonably be construed, as constituting harassment.”
Mr Kalar also alleged he was discriminated over different postings, including one transfer to Heathrow Terminal 2 which he said was a “punishment post”. He alleged he was being “spied on” and also claimed one colleague was a “deeply racist officer”. The tribunal report said: “He says that he has been continuously discriminated against from the time he was removed from [Ports Duty Supervisor] in 2017.
“He contends that there have been a series of directly connected and continuing acts as part of a lengthy campaign… He refers to a collective witch hunt. [Mr Kalar]… referred to an overarching culture of institutional racism, misogyny and disablism.”
Judge Nicolle said Mr Kalar’s case was a “scatter gun approach” because he “labelled virtually every allegation as constituting harassment on account of both race and disability”. Judge Nicolle said “many of his allegations are inherently inconsistent” and said from 2020 there was “increasing evidence that he was focussing on creating potential evidence for a likely legal claim”.
