A social worker has called for "transparency, accountability and real change" after the Court of Appeal upheld findings that her former employer racially discriminated against her.
Leicester council lost a second appeal against 2023 employment tribunal findings that it discriminated against former service manager Bindu Parmar in taking disciplinary action against her when it had not done so against white staff in similar circumstances.
Though the East Midlands authority said it was disappointed by the decision, it pledged to respect the court's judgment. It also said it would commission an independent review of its disciplinary processes to ensure there could be no perception of discrimination when they were duly followed by managers.
Finding of racial discrimination
In January 2023, an employment tribunal ruled that Parmar, who is of Indian origin, had been racially discriminated against in relation to a disciplinary investigation the authority took against her in January 2021, when it also temporarily suspended her from her head of service role.This was triggered by a complaint against Parmar by a manager within another service, including claims that she had victimised an agency worker.
Though the investigation against Parmar was initiated by her line manager, director of adult social care and safeguarding Ruth Lake, it was subsequently transferred to another director, who found, in May 2021, that Parmar had no case to answer.
The tribunal judged that there was “nothing of substance to start a disciplinary investigation” against Parmar. It said that Lake, who is still in her post, would have been aware of this “because the wording of the allegations calling Mrs Parmar to an investigation did not set out any identifiable acts of misconduct”.
No action against white staff in similar circumstances
Furthermore, the tribunal found that, in a number of comparable situations, Lake, did not take disciplinary action against white staff.These included another head of service admitting that she had behaved inappropriately by swearing audibly in an open-plan office at the end of a phone conversation with Lake. Lake subsequently discussed this informally with the head of service and took no further action.
At the time of the tribunal, the only other member of staff of a comparable grade to Parmar whom Lake had taken disciplinary action against was also of Asian origin, while the only head of service disciplined was also Asian.
From these facts, an inference could be drawn that the council had discriminated against Parmar, the tribunal found, transferring the burden of proof from the claimant (Parmar) to the respondent (Leicester).
This meant the council was required to prove on the balance of probabilities that it had not discriminated against her, which the tribunal concluded it had failed to do, including by not considering lesser or more proportionate means of addressing alleged work or conduct issues.
First appeal rejected
The council appealed to the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) on 11 grounds, including that the employment tribunal had been wrong to reverse the burden of proof.However, in a judgment last year, the EAT rejected all 11, endorsing the tribunal's view that employees of a different race to Parmar had not been subject to formal disciplinary proceedings in similar circumstances to hers.
Leicester then appealed to the Court of Appeal. Among other matters, it argued that the employment tribunal had not paid attention to the differences in circumstances between Parmar and the white staff to whom she was compared, nor had it made findings about the circumstances of the two Asian employees also disciplined.
Court of Appeal judgment
However, in a judgment handed down last month, the court rejected all four of its grounds of appeal.It found that the tribunal was not wrong in law to not itemise all the similarities and differences in the cases of Parmar and her comparators. It was also entitled to decide, on the basis of its findings of fact, that their circumstances were "sufficiently similar to those of Mrs Parmar to mean that their different treatment by the council supported an inference of discrimination".
The Court of Appeal also rejected the council's claims about the tribunal's treatment of the cases of the two other Asian employees disciplined.
The council submitted data about them to Parmar after she made a data subject access request and did not provide detailed evidence about them at the tribunal, said the court.
It ruled that Parmar could not be criticised for failing to produce evidence about them, when this was within the council's knowledge, not hers, and that the tribunal was entitled to take their cases into account as part of the social worker's overall evidence.
'Time for transparency, accountability and real change'
In response to the ruling, Parmar said: "I made a moral and ethical commitment when I chose this career - to protect those who cannot always protect themselves. I took that responsibility seriously every single day.
"But that same duty must apply to the institution as a whole. When racism is ignored, when accountability is evaded, and when those responsible are left in power, it’s not just staff who suffer - it’s the communities we are meant to serve."
She added: "It’s time for transparency, accountability, and real change - not just for staff, but for every single person who needs to know that when they ask for help, they will be treated with dignity, fairness and respect."
Parmar is also bringing an unfair dismissal claim against Leicester council. A hearing is scheduled to take place later this year.
'No direct evidence of race discrimination'
Giving the council's response to the judgment, chief operating officer Alison Greenhill said: “We are disappointed with this decision, but do respect the findings of the court.“This case came about because a number of employees formally raised serious concerns regarding Ms Parmar. The manager concerned correctly followed council procedures by opening an investigation into these complaints.
“We saw nothing in the original judgement that convinced us the manager began the investigation on the grounds of ethnicity. Indeed, the judge found that there was no direct evidence of race discrimination, but rather he ‘inferred’ that there had been discrimination on the grounds of race."
Independent review of processes pledged
She added: “We have carefully considered the case and all of the findings, which of course have raised serious issues for us as an employer. We therefore intend to examine our processes very thoroughly - to ensure there can be no perception, or inference of discrimination, when managers are duly following them.“We will be asking an appropriate, independent organisation to review our processes for us, to ensure that all staff and managers can have confidence in them going forward.”
