In Leicester City Council v Parmar [2025] EWCA Civ 952, the Court of Appeal has upheld a tribunal’s decision that the Council directly discriminated against a senior employee on the grounds of race.
Case Background
Mrs Parmar, a British national of Indian heritage with more than three decades of social work experience, held the position of head of service at Leicester City Council. In early 2021, she was temporarily removed from her role and placed under a disciplinary investigation based on vague allegations. She was not given clear details of the supposed misconduct.
She alleged that two white colleagues in equivalent senior roles, who faced similar circumstances, were treated more favourably with matters resolved informally through mediation rather than through formal disciplinary procedures. A subject access request also revealed that since 2017, only BAME senior managers, including herself, had been subjected to disciplinary action, while no white senior managers had been treated in the same way.
The tribunal found that race was a factor in the decision to investigate her. It also criticised the Council’s failure to disclose key evidence, including interview notes and recordings, which justified drawing adverse inferences. This shifted the burden to the Council to provide a non-discriminatory explanation, which it was unable to do.
Appeal
The Council’s initial appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was unsuccessful. It then appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the tribunal had:
- Misapplied the comparator test,
- Drawn unjustified inferences from non-disclosure, and
- Wrongly rejected its explanations.
Finding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that:
- The tribunal had correctly identified appropriate comparators and was entitled to compare treatment without exhaustively listing every similarity and difference.
- The adverse inferences drawn from the Council’s non-disclosure were valid, but the burden of proof was not automatically reversed.
- The Council’s explanations lacked credibility and did not rebut the inference of discrimination.
The Court of Appeal emphasised that appellate courts should address legal errors rather than re-evaluating the facts and should interpret tribunal decisions as a whole, not by isolating particular sentences.
The case is a reminder for employers to maintain complete records during internal investigations and to be thoroughly prepared for tribunal scrutiny.
