Veteran Police Sergeant Loses Discrimination Case Over 'Numpty' Remark
A long-serving Metropolitan Police sergeant has been ordered to pay £12,000 in legal costs after unsuccessfully suing the force for discrimination when his boss called him a 'numpty'. Sonny Kalar, who served with the Met for three decades, claimed he was offended when Chief Inspector Marlise Davies used the term twice during conversations.
The employment tribunal heard that Mr Kalar brought a staggering 271 individual allegations against senior officers, including claims of race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and whistle-blowing detriment. However, all of these claims were dismissed by London Central Employment Tribunal.
Tribunal Rules Claims Had 'No Reasonable Prospect of Success'
Employment Judge Richard Nicolle delivered a damning assessment of Mr Kalar's case, describing his approach as a 'scattergun' method that involved 'the continuing pursuit of claims with no reasonable prospect of success'. The judge noted that Mr Kalar had progressively sought to label every minor workplace issue as discrimination in a 'disproportionate and unreasonable fashion'.
The tribunal found that Chief Inspector Davies used the term 'numpty' in a 'lighthearted manner' and that it couldn't be considered discriminatory because it lacks any 'racial or disability connotations'. Judge Nicolle acknowledged that while Mr Kalar might have subjectively perceived the comment as disparaging, this reflected his 'heightened sensitivity' rather than how the remarks would be viewed objectively.
The 'Numpty' Incident and Wider Allegations
The case centred around a telephone conversation in July 2022 when Mr Kalar was on sick leave recovering from a knee operation. During the hour-long call, CI Davies allegedly used the phrase 'living the dream' and called Mr Kalar a 'numpty' - though she admitted to using the term only once, not twice as claimed.
Mr Kalar also made wide-ranging allegations against senior Met officers, claiming there was a 'collective witch hunt' against him and referring to what he described as 'an overarching culture of institutional racism, misogyny and disablism'. He alleged he was being spied on, described one colleague as a 'deeply racist officer', and claimed a transfer to Heathrow Terminal 2 was a 'punishment post'.
Mr Kalar joined the Met Police in June 1993 and retired in June 2023, having served for exactly thirty years. Throughout the proceedings, he maintained that he had been continuously discriminated against since being removed from his Ports Duty Supervisor role in 2017.
Understanding the Term 'Numpty'
The word 'numpty', which dates back to 1733, is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as 'a stupid or foolish person; an idiot'. Research from King's College London indicates the term was first used in a play as a 'term of mocking endearment for a cuckolded husband'.
Particularly popular in Scotland, where it was once found to be the nation's favourite word, 'numpty' is often used in an endearing way to poke fun at someone. The tribunal accepted CI Davies' evidence that she used informal, self-deprecating and humorous language regularly in her communications.
The ruling emphasised that context was crucial in determining whether language constitutes harassment, noting that CI Davies had apologised for using the term despite maintaining it was intended affectionately.
Financial Consequences and Legal Precedent
The order for Mr Kalar to pay £12,000 towards the Met Police's legal costs represents a significant financial consequence for bringing what the tribunal deemed unreasonable claims. Judge Nicolle made clear that both limbs of their assessment applied - that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and that Mr Kalar's conduct in bringing them was unreasonable.
This case highlights the importance of distinguishing between genuinely discriminatory behaviour and workplace banter, as well as the risks of pursuing employment claims without reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal's detailed ruling provides guidance on how informal language should be contextualised in discrimination cases.
The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for employees considering legal action, emphasising the need for proportionality and reasonable prospects of success when bringing employment tribunal claims.
