Parmar v LCC

By Jo Seery Professional Support Lawyer &

Louise Roberts Employment Rights Lawyer

Background 

Mrs Bindu Parmar is a British National of Indian origin. She started as a qualified social worker for Leicester City Council but over the course of three decades became a Team Leader and then, in 2015, was appointed as a Head of Service, managing five Team Leaders. It was common ground that between 2018 and 2021, there was a poor relationship between the teams, which resulted in a number of complaints. The Director of Adult Social Care and Safeguarding, Ms Lake, was responsible for ensuring the teams and the Heads of Service co-operated with each other.  

In 2021 following a complaint about her, Mrs Parmar was subject to a disciplinary investigation led by Ms Lake. Mrs Parmar was temporarily transferred from her post. Mrs Parmar brought proceedings for direct race discrimination, citing two white British Heads of Service as her comparators.  

The Employment Tribunal upheld her claim. They found that in a number of comparable situations, Ms Lake chose not to instigate disciplinary proceedings when complaints involved employees of a different race than Mrs Parmar; instead, her normal approach was to offer mediation or deal with complaints informally. She only took the more drastic approach of disciplinary proceedings after Mrs Parmar had accused her of unconscious racial bias.  

The Council appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), but their appeal was not upheld. They then appealed to the Court of Appeal. 

Key Issues 

• The Council challenged the tribunal’s treatment of the comparators, arguing it was wrong to find that the burden of proof had shifted from Mrs Parmar to the Council. 

• It also argued that the tribunal erred in drawing adverse inferences against the Council from its failure to disclose documents and relevant information. 

Outcome 

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Council’s appeal. It held that: 

• In the absence of an actual comparator, the tribunal had properly considered, and was entitled to rely on, the evidence that Mrs Parmar had been treated more harshly by Ms Lake than Heads of Services whose conduct was broadly similar to hers, and evidence that Ms Lake had disciplined at least two Asian managers but no white managers. 

• The Tribunal was entitled to draw adverse inferences against the Council as it made findings of fact that Ms Lake failed to properly particularise the allegations against Mrs Parmar, the Council withheld transcripts of interviews taken by Ms Lake although other Directors were able to review this information, the Council failed to provide the transcripts as part of a Subject Access Request and again during litigation.  The ET was entitled to find this was relevant information. 

Why This Matters 

The creation of a comparator is a matter of fact and degree, and the more significant those differences between the claimant and the comparator, the less convincing will be the case for drawing an inference of discrimination. Nevertheless, a tribunal is not required to laboriously itemise all the similarities and differences between the claimant and the comparator. This case confirms that tribunals can take into account evidence of the way in which a respondent treats an employee if there are relevant similarities – here it was the finding that at least two Asian managers whose circumstances were sufficiently similar to Ms Parmars had been subjected to a disciplinary procedure and no white managers had.  This was enough to shift the burden of proof and the council had failed to provide a non discriminatory reason for its decision to discipline Ms Parmar. 

For trade union reps, it is a reminder that inconsistent or unjustified treatment of members—especially where race may be a factor—can and should be challenged. It also highlights the importance of pressing employers for full disclosure in discrimination cases.