In Leicester City Council v Parmar the Court of Appeal has confirmed that Mrs Parmar was directly discriminated against because of race.
Mrs Parmar had been subjected to a disciplinary investigation, the allegations around which were vague. Mrs Parmar’s belief was that she was being treated differently than her white colleagues who were in similar circumstances and that this was due to her race.
The first instance tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal both held that the facts in the case gave rise to an inference of discrimination.
When an inference of discrimination arises the burden of proof moves from the claimant to the respondent in the claim: it is for the respondent to show that race was not the reason for the treatment.
In both the ET and the EAT the Council failed to discharge the burden of proof and so a finding of direct discrimination was made. It is to be noted that it is extremely rare for claimants to succeed in direct discrimination claims. The Council appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal agreed with both courts below. They held that the circumstances with Mrs Parmar’s situation and those of her white colleagues were sufficiently similar to mean that her white colleagues were appropriate comparators and that the different treatment implied that an inference of discrimination had been made out. The Council had failed to comply with some of its disclosure obligations which assisted the Court in establishing an inference: it was incorrect to state that the burden of proof had automatically been shifted by these failures. That was only a part of the reasoning. It was clear that the tribunals below had considered the Council’s ability to discharge the burden of proof. The Council had failed in this endeavour. The tribunals had not found the explanations of the Council to be credible and were entitled to do so. If the explanations were not credible the inference of discrimination could not be displaced leading to the finding that direct race discrimination had indeed occurred.
This blog was written by Anita Vadgama, Partner at didlaw.
