Calling your colleague a 'nutter' could be harassment, an employment judge has ruled.People who use the phrase could be found liable for harassment under UK employment law, according to the new finding.It can be 'unpleasant and hostile', a judge said.It comes after the case of a Royal Mail worker who was called a 'nutter' at a mail centre in Croydon.An employment tribunal heard fellow postal workers would call Corleen Maynard a 'nutter' under their breath as they walked past her.Employment Judge Michael Reed found that the insult can meet the threshold for harassment because it can cause a 'hostile environment'.However, in the case of Ms Maynard, who is black, she lost her race harassment claim because Judge Reed said there wasn't sufficient evidence colleagues were using the word due to racism.The hearing in Croydon was told that Ms Maynard started working for Royal Mail at the Croydon Mail Centre in November 2001. Corleen Maynard said colleagues at Croydon Mail Centre (above) muttered 'nutter' at her under their breathHer employment went smoothly until 20 years later in December 2020, when Ms Maynard alleged her harassment had started.She said that she was working in a mostly Pakistani team, which separated her as one of the few black people in the workforce.Ms Maynard would frequently argue with the other members of her team, which she believed was due to her being the 'victim of a cabal within the Mail Centre'.The first incident, in December 2020, occurred when a co-worker told her what to do, but Ms Maynard felt that she didn't have the authority to do so.They argued briefly, during which her co-worker told Ms Maynard to 'shut up',But at a meeting discussing the incident, one of Ms Maynard's co-workers pointedly said to another that 'some people have no brains'.In the months after the argument, other co-workers began to use 'despicable' and 'disparaging' insults towards Ms Maynard 'in defence' of their friend.They would mutter things under their breath when she walked past, including the word 'nutter', the panel heard.It was also heard Ms Maynard received other insults - including being told she was an 'ugly b****', was 'grossly ugly', and was 'mentally ill'.Judge Reed said the insults, including 'nutter', could amount to harassment.'I have concluded that this was unwanted conduct, which had the effect of creating a hostile environment for Ms Maynard', Judge Reed said.'Given my findings of fact, this is self-evident, both from the nature of the remarks and from Ms Maynard's evidence.'The comments are unpleasant and hostile, but the words used do not refer, either explicitly or by implication, to Ms Maynard's race.'The tribunal also heard there were multiple incidents of co-workers trying to get Ms Maynard in trouble, and evidence was heard about at least two colleagues allegedly recording the employee with their phones. Ms Maynard complained about these incidents, and in June 2022 an investigation was launched, led by a manager from another centre.This investigation found that Ms Maynard was the perpetrator rather than the victim,The manager had closed the report by writing: 'Her claims are absurd propositions, preposterous accusations without any foundation.'She has developed a penchant for levelling trumped up accusations against her work colleagues for her own self-aggrandizement.'A glorification of all things absurd. The reverse is the case. She was the perpetrator, not the victim, as she portrayed herself to be.'It concluded that colleagues had been too timid to stand up to her. This 'decision report' did not uphold any of the complaints made by Ms Maynard and was appealed. An independent casework manager dealt with the appeal and labelled the report void, pointing out that it was 'adversarial' and 'unfair' in its conduct, presentation and treatment of Ms Maynard. Ms Maynard lodged a claim of direct discrimination against the manager, who is himself black though African instead of Caribbean like Ms Maynard.Ms Maynard also complained that she was discriminated against in the selection of overtime hours, for which she was disproportionately left out.Judge Reed found that some of the incidents brought forward by Ms Maynard did degrade her and contributed to creating a 'hostile environment' for her.He concluded that a colleague had described Ms Maynard as 'a nutter, an ugly b****, mentally ill, grossly ugly and suggested that she had no friends and that nobody liked her.'However, addressing that and the other incidents including the investigation findings, he ruled that: 'Ms Maynard had not established primary facts on which a Tribunal could find, in the absence of explanation, that this incident amounted to conduct related to her race.'Again, there is nothing on the face of the accounts of this incident that suggests a connection to race.'The difference in race between Ms Maynard and (her co-workers) is insufficient to support a conclusion that the conduct related to her race.'He continued: 'I have also considered whether, taking the totality of the allegations and the evidence, Ms Maynard has established facts that might lead a Tribunal to decide that there has been discrimination in relation to any of the allegations.'I have concluded that they do not.'Ms Maynard has, in my view, established that she has been a victim of acts of bullying by some individuals in Royal Mail and there were occasions, particularly in respect of (the manager's) investigation of her complaint, where Royal Mail behaved unfairly towards her.'But the evidence was not such as to allow for an inference that this behaviour related in any way to her race.'