Case Study: Avoiding Discrimination Claims Through Fair Disciplinary Procedures

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Leicester City Council v Parmarserves as a stark reminder for employers about the importance of fair and transparent disciplinary processes in avoiding discrimination claims.

Prohibition of direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) prohibits direct race discrimination, which occurs when an individual is treated less favourably than others because of their race.

Tribunals assess evidence based on a real or hypothetical person or persons whose circumstances are not materially different from that of the claimant. These persons are used as a point of comparison to the claimant (referred to as comparators) when considering whether the facts suggest discrimination.

Where it is established that, on the face of it, the tribunal can properly draw an inference that the reason for the difference in treatment is discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to prove a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the treatment.

Leicester City Council v Parmar: Background to the case

Mrs Parmar, a British national of Indian origin with over 30 years’ experience and an unblemished record, was temporarily transferred from her role and subjected to disciplinary investigations by Leicester City Council. This occurred without clear allegations or evidence being disclosed.

Mrs Parmar claimed that her treatment differed from that of white colleagues in similar situations. Mrs Parmar brought a claim of race discrimination.

Tribunal and Appeal outcomes

In the employment tribunal, it was judged that the comparators, two white heads of service, were treated more leniently in similar circumstances. The tribunal concluded, and the Court of Appeal upheld, that Mrs Parmar had been treated less favourably because of her race.

Key findings included:

• The Council initiated disciplinary investigations against Mrs Parmar despite insufficient evidence. Conversely, white comparators in similar or worse situations were offered mediation or informal resolution.
• Highly relevant evidence was withheld from Mrs Parmar and the tribunal, leading to adverse inferences.
• The Council failed to provide a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for its actions.

The importance of fair disciplinary procedures: lessons for employers

1. Employees must be given the details of allegations in disciplinary matters. Vague or unsupported claims can undermine the fairness of the process. Furthermore, where an employee has a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, lead to an inference of discriminatory treatment.
2. Employees must be provided with, or have access to, the evidence upon which the employer relies.
3. Employers should ensure that decisions are based on objective facts, rather than assumptions.
4. Employers must treat employees in comparable situations consistently. Differences in treatment can lead to adverse inferences and, where relevant, findings of unfair dismissal.
5. Documentation from internal processes must be preserved and disclosed where relevant. Such documentation is key to defending tribunal claims. A failure to do so may be interpreted as an attempt to conceal evidence.
6. Credible, well-documented explanations are essential for defending discrimination claims.

For more information about this article or any other aspect of people services reimagined, download our App for Apple or Android, or get in touch via our contact form.