In Leicester City Council v Parmar, the Court of Appeal upheld a tribunal’s finding that the council had directly discriminated against a senior employee, Mrs Parmar, on the grounds of her race. The case provides a stark reminder of the importance of fair and transparent disciplinary procedures.

Direct race discrimination

Direct race discrimination occurs where, because of race, an employer treats an employee less favourably than it treats or would treat others. An employee claiming direct race discrimination will need to show that they have been treated less favourably than a real or hypothetical comparator whose circumstances are not materially different to theirs.

In order to succeed in such a claim, the employee first needs to prove facts from which a tribunal could properly infer that discrimination occurred (a prima facie case). If they do so, the tribunal will then consider if the employer’s explanation is sufficient to show that it did not discriminate. 

Facts

Mrs Parmar, a British national of Indian heritage, was employed as a head of service at Leicester City Council (the Council).

In early 2021, following internal disputes and complaints about service areas, she was suspended from her post as head of service and informed that a disciplinary investigation was to take place. The allegations against her were vague and lacked detail. While two general failures were alleged against her, Mrs Parmar was given no details such as dates of alleged events, alleged conduct, people involved, or the provisions or standards which she was said to have breached.

There followed a disciplinary process. At no point did the Council share recordings or transcripts of the investigation interviews with Mrs Parmar. Throughout the process, Mrs Parmar raised that she did not understand the allegations against her.

At the conclusion of the disciplinary process, Mrs Parmar was told that there was no case to answer and as such, no further action would be taken.

Mrs Parmar subsequently brought a claim against the Council for direct race, on the basis that the allegations levelled at her and the preceding disciplinary investigation were discriminatory. She identified two white colleagues as her comparators and claimed that the Council had treated them more favourably in similar circumstances. She further highlighted that, since 2017, disciplinary action had only been taken against senior managers from ethnic minority backgrounds.

The Council again failed to disclose the investigation recordings and transcripts during the tribunal proceedings as they said they were not relevant.

Tribunal and appeal decisions

The employment tribunal found that that Mrs Parmer had established a prima facie case:

• The Council had treated white comparators more leniently in similar circumstances.
• The disciplinary process lacked transparency and fairness.
• The Council’s failure to disclose key evidence undermined its credibility.

Having reviewed all the evidence, the tribunal concluded that the Council had not provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for its treatment of Mrs Parmar. As a result, it found that direct race discrimination had occurred.

Eventually, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, this tribunal’s decision was upheld, confirming that the correct legal tests had been applied and that the findings were well-supported by the evidence. It agreed that the comparators relied upon were appropriate, the Council’s explanations lacked credibility, and the tribunal was entitled to draw adverse inferences from the Council’s failure to disclose key documents.

Key takeaways for employers

This case highlights several important lessons for employers to bear in mind when conducting internal processes, such as disciplinary procedures:

• Transparency is essential: when initiating a disciplinary process, employers should ensure that employees are clear about the specific allegations against them.
• Consistency matters: disciplinary procedures should be applied uniformly across all staff. Otherwise, inferences could be drawn that the reason for the differing treatment is discriminatory. Employers should be able to justify differences in treatment between employees in similar circumstances.
• Record-keeping is critical: detailed and accurate notes should be taken of meetings and these should be retained for disclosure purposes.
• Credible explanations are vital: employers should be prepared to defend their decisions with clear, non-discriminatory reasoning.