A recent Court of Appeal case ruled that an employee was unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of her race, after the employer transferred her to another job and subjected her to baseless disciplinary action – Leicester City Council v Parmar.
Mrs Parmar (P), of Indian origin, worked for the Council in the Social Services Department as Head of Service with many years’ experience. Her work was overseen by her immediate line manager, Mrs Lake (L). In January 2021, following a dispute between service areas, L decided to move P to another job and commenced a disciplinary investigation against her.
A remote investigation meeting took place on 19 February 2021, after L interviewed nine witnesses. The allegation raised two general failures by P but did not provide supporting facts, dates, names, or details of the alleged conduct. A second investigation meeting was arranged but cancelled after P went off sick with stress. During her absence, it was decided that another manager (T) would take over the investigation. Having reviewed L’s investigation notes and recordings, P was invited to another re-arranged investigation meeting, but she was not provided with these notes or recordings.
At the re-arranged meeting in April 2021, P told T that she did not understand what she had done wrong, as nothing had been explained to her and she had not been given details of the alleged evidence. At that stage, T informed P that the disciplinary process would not continue. On the same day, P issued a race discrimination claim, alleging that the decision to transfer her to another job and subject her to disciplinary action was discriminatory on the grounds of race.
P claimed that two white Heads of Service had engaged in conduct similar to hers, if not more serious, yet had not been subjected to sanctions. Further, it was noted that no white manager had been disciplined since 2017, but two managers from ethnic minority backgrounds had been. The Employment Tribunal upheld her claim, finding she had established enough facts to draw an inference of discrimination. L had chosen to treat white colleagues guilty of similar conduct either informally or via mediation, whereas P was threatened with disciplinary action. The burden was on the Council to show that they had not discriminated against P, which they failed to do. Failure to provide P with evidence in advance of meetings was also deemed a breach of the rules governing disciplinary actions and of natural justice.
The Council appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. After that appeal was rejected, they further appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. It concluded that the Employment Tribunal was right in accepting P’s white comparators as those whose conduct was suitably similar to her alleged conduct, and that their different treatment was sufficient to give rise to an inference of discrimination. The Court also held that the Council’s justification for its conduct did not adequately explain its actions and lacked credibility. These explanations could not displace the inference of discrimination.
This case highlights the need for all employers to handle investigations and disciplinary meetings with due diligence, openness, and fairness. Crucially, it emphasises the importance of treating employees of all backgrounds consistently when facing similar allegations. The key message is consistency in treatment regardless of race, sex, or origin, and ensuring transparency and due process when conducting investigations and disciplinary action.
Employers are advised to call the HR Helpline on 01455 852028 to obtain expert advice, remain compliant, and avoid litigation claims.
