Leicester City Council loses appeal in employee racial discrimination case

A local council has lost its appeal against a finding of racial discrimination. Bindu Parmar, who describes herself as a British citizen of Indian origin, claimed she was discriminated against because of her race while working for Leicester City Council.

An employment tribunal heard last April that Ms Parmar, a qualified and experienced social worker in charge of a team in the council’s adult social work department, was subject to a disciplinary inquiry in January 2021, after complaints were filed against her. Ruth Lake, a senior member of staff at the council, moved Ms Parmar from her role as head of service and launched an internal investigation against her after complaints were made against her.

The tribunal panel said in its report that the only other head of service to be the subject of a formal investigation was also of Asian descent. He also listed a number of other incidents within the department that were handled informally despite being as serious, or in some cases more serious, than the allegations against the woman.

READ MORE: Place of worship plan emerges for ‘seemingly depressing’ Leicester pub.

Ms Parmar won the case, with the jury concluding that her treatment had “no other credible explanation” than discrimination. However, the council said at the time that it was “disappointed” by the verdict and planned to appeal.

The verdict on this appeal has now been delivered, with Ms Parmar winning again. The council argued that the tribunal had erred in shifting the burden of proof from Ms Parmar to the local authority.

This meant that the council had to prove that Ms Lake’s actions were not based on discrimination, rather than proving that Ms Parmar was. The employment tribunal ruled it had not done so, but the council argued it should not have and gave 11 reasons why it thought so.

Among them, the board’s lawyers accused the panel of “failing to provide adequate grounds for concluding that it could infer that the treatment was because of race,” failing to consider the allegations against the board separately, failing to consider “whether there was a shortage. -the discriminatory explanation for the treatment” of Ms. Parmar and the use of what the board labeled “a mere difference in treatment” to shift the burden of proof.

Ruling on the appeal, Mr Justice James Tayler dismissed all 11 points raised by the local authority and agreed with the employment tribunal’s decision to shift the burden of proof. He said: “A number of employees of a different race to the complainant were not subject to formal disciplinary proceedings in circumstances similar to those in which the complainant was.

“The similarity of circumstances and the fact that a number of employees of a different race were treated more favorably clearly establishes more than a mere difference in treatment and status. If what the Employment Tribunal found is not evidence that could support a claim of race discrimination, it is hard to imagine what is.”

He added: “I see no error of law in the Employment Tribunal considering the evidence as a whole to decide whether the burden of proof shifted so that the defendant was required to show that Ms Lake’s actions were not discriminatory. “

Leicester City Council said it disagreed with the decision and was considering launching another appeal. A council spokesman said: “We are very disappointed and disagree with the decision in this case.

“We are therefore considering an appeal. With this in mind, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.”

Opposition members of the council also chimed in. Conservative councilor Hemant Rae Bhatia said: “We are seeking clarification from the council on the Bindu Parmar tribunal case.

“The verdict is a serious and damning indictment of what goes on inside the council. Thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been spent to defend a senior officer in serious error.

“This is simply immoral and wrong. Council leadership will have a lot to answer for in how they behave.”