{"id":3484,"date":"2025-10-08T14:07:15","date_gmt":"2025-10-08T14:07:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bangbizarre.com\/index.php\/2025\/10\/08\/calling-workmate-a-nutter-may-be-harassment\/"},"modified":"2025-10-08T14:07:17","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T14:07:17","slug":"calling-workmate-a-nutter-may-be-harassment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bangbizarre.com\/index.php\/2025\/10\/08\/calling-workmate-a-nutter-may-be-harassment\/","title":{"rendered":"Calling workmate a 'nutter' may be harassment"},"content":{"rendered":"

2025-10-08 14:07:15<\/b>
\n
Calling a colleague a “nutter” or “ugly” could amount to workplace harassment, a judge has ruled.

\nDuring a Royal Mail worker\u2019s discrimination case – which was ultimately dismissed – employment judge Michael Reed said the remarks created an \u201cunpleasant and hostile\u201d environment for Corleen Maynard.

\nJudge Reed found no evidence that the abuse Ms. Maynard – who worked at Royal Mail\u2019s Croydon Mail Centre – suffered was racially motivated.

\nThe tribunal heard one colleague had referred to Ms Maynard as a “nutter,” “ugly b****,” and “mentally ill,” with another worker claiming she was “grossly ugly” and “had no friends.”

\nJudge Reed said: “This was unwanted conduct, which had the effect of creating a hostile environment for Ms. Maynard.”

\nMs. Maynard began working for Royal Mail in 2001, but said harassment started in December 2020 following a dispute over workplace instructions.

\nShe alleged colleagues of Pakistani heritage had formed a “cabal” against her, a claim the judge rejected due to a lack of evidence.

\nThe tribunal heard that tensions escalated, with “despicable” insults and reports of colleagues secretly recording her.

\nRoyal Mail launched an internal investigation in 2022, but the manager concluded Ms. Maynard was the aggressor rather than the victim, describing her claims as “preposterous accusations without any foundation.”

\nMs. Maynard\u2019s appeals were unsuccessful, leading her to file for racial harassment and discrimination.

\nWhile Judge Reed said the behaviour she described met the definition of harassment, he ruled her claim failed because there was no proof of racial motivation.

\nHe added: “I have not been able to reach conclusions about the context in which these remarks were made… because there was insufficient evidence to do so.”
\n
Visit Bang Bizarre (main website) <\/a>
\n