Race discrimination in disciplinary processes

In the case of Leicester City Council v Parmar, the Court of Appeal (CA) upheld the decisions of the employment tribunal (ET) and employment appeal tribunal (EAT). This marked a clear victory for Mrs Parmar, a senior social worker, who alleged racial discrimination in her treatment by Leicester City Council.

Background and ET findings

Mrs Parmar, of Indian origin, worked as head of service for the locality west. She had over 30 years’ experience and no previous disciplinary record. In January 2021, she was temporarily transferred from her role and subjected to a formal disciplinary investigation based on vague, non‑specific allegations. These included allegations of safeguarding failures and misconduct. However, even when she asked for clarity, the allegations remained unclear.

The ET found that her line manager, Ms Lake, had only ever initiated formal disciplinary action against Asian staff of similar rank and never applied the same formal sanctions against white colleagues in similar circumstances. This disparity, together with the vague allegations and failure to consider more proportionate measures (eg mediation), led the ET to conclude that Mrs Parmar had been discriminated against on the basis of race under s136 of the Equality Act 2010.

Appeals and legal reasoning

Leicester City Council appealed to the EAT, arguing among other grounds, that the ET had erred in how it treated comparators, improperly drew adverse inferences from failure to disclose evidence, and misapplied legal standards in shifting the burden of proof.

The EAT dismissed the appeal and agreed that the ET had correctly shifted the burden of proof once prima facie discrimination was established, and that the Council failed to convincingly rebut it.

The council’s final appeal to the Court of Appeal (CA) argued that the ET had erred in its factual and legal analysis, in particular around comparators and the adequacy of reasons. In July 2025, Lady Justice Laing dismissed the appeal. The CA concluded that the ET had not erred in law in its approach to comparators (who need not be identical), in drawing inferences from disparity in treatment, or in finding that formal discipline was applied in a discriminatory manner.

Implications

UNISON described the result as a “significant legal victory” and criticised the council for pursuing multiple appeals at public expense. In response, the council expressed disappointment but stated that it would respect the judgment and would commission an independent review of its disciplinary processes to ensure fairness and avoid discrimination perceptions.

Conclusion

Ensure comparator consistency

Employers must carefully consider both actual and hypothetical comparators. Formal disciplinary measures against one group where others in similar circumstances received informal solutions can form a strong argument for a discrimination claim.

Clearly specify allegations

Vague or unclear allegations that leave an employee unsure of what they are accused of can undermine credibility and may be perceived as discriminatory, especially when combined with inconsistent treatment.

Document decision making and disclosure processes

Failure to disclose relevant evidence, or explain decision making processes, can create negative inferences from tribunals, especially when comparing differential treatment relating to protected characteristics.

Use proportionate and consistent procedures

Where concerns arise, consider whether mediation or informal resolution is possible. Escalation to formal disciplinary proceedings should be carefully justified and consistent across staff.

Review policies regularly

Use independent reviews to assess impartiality in disciplinary and appraisal systems and address potential biases. A transparent approach helps employers respond more credibly if challenged.

Be mindful of public resources

Employers should weigh the cost and reputational impact of repeated litigation. Settlement or internal resolution may be more constructive when equality concerns are well-founded. This is even more relevant in the public sector.

Summary

In summary, this case highlights that formal disciplinary actions must be applied fairly, consistently, and transparently. Disparities in treatment along racial lines, whether intentional or due to the processes in place, can lead to serious legal repercussions. Employers should proactively ensure fairness and equality into every aspect of management and disciplinary processes.

Need support with your HR?

Our support means you can focus on education, while we take care of your organisation’s HR needs.

Whether you need help with appraisals, advice on managing a disciplinary or grievance, or guidance on statutory obligations, our education HR specialists can support your school with a flexible and cost-effective service. Get in touch about how we can help you.

The discipline section of our CEFMi website contains model policies, information and related model letters and forms. Get a free trial of CEFMi – a comprehensive resource for school managers containing over 7,000 pages of text, including over 170 policies written specifically for schools.