Council found to have racially discriminated against social worker lodges second appeal

A council found by an employment tribunal to have racially discriminated against a social worker has lodged a second challenge to the decision after losing its initial appeal.

Leicester City Council has sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal after the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) last month rejected its challenge against a ruling that it had discriminated against Bindu Parmar.

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. This included claims that Parmar had victimised an agency worker, who then reported to the other manager, including by suggesting his decision making would be subject to additional oversight.

‘Nothing of substance’ to disciplinary investigation

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 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”.

Also, the agency worker Parmar was accused of victimising was not interviewed as part of the investigation despite his alleged victimisation being the trigger for it.

No action taken against white staff in comparable 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.
• The same head of service triggering a collective grievance by team leaders in Parmar’s locality west service, by sending an email late on a Friday afternoon saying that her service would be redirecting work to locality west the following week, without her having the authority to do this. No disciplinary action against the head of service resulted from this.
• A team leader accusing a senior social work practitioner of publicly humiliating them in a training session, and in return being told that the tone of her email was unacceptable. Lake decided mediation between the two was the best course of 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

Reversing the burden of proof

From these facts, an inference could be drawn that the council had discriminated against Parmar, the tribunal found.

As a result, as provided for by section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, it transferred 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 in relation to:

• Transferring Parmar from her role as head of service and starting a disciplinary investigation against her in January 2021.
• Causing her to attend two disciplinary meetings only to be told that she had no case to answer.
• Not considering lesser or more proportionate means of addressing alleged work or conduct issues concerning Parmar.

11 grounds of appeal dismissed

In its appeal to the EAT, the council lodged 11 grounds in relation to which it claimed that the tribunal had been wrong to have reversed the burden of proof and found that it had discriminated against Parmar.

This included that the tribunal had wrongly reversed the burden of proof based on a “mere difference” in the way the council had treated Parmar and other, white, staff, respectively.

However, in its judgment last month, the EAT rejected all 11 grounds.

In relation to ground 2, the EAT concluded: “A number of employees of different race to the claimant have not been subject of formal disciplinary proceedings in circumstances similar to those in which the claimant was.

“The similarity of the circumstances, and the fact that a number of employees of different race have been treated more favourably, obviously establishes more than a mere difference of 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.”

Council ‘disappointed by judgment’

Directly following the judgment, a Leicester City Council spokesperson said: “We are very disappointed and do not agree with the judgment in this case. We are therefore considering an appeal.  In view of this, it would not be appropriate for us to comment further at this time.”

It has now lodged that appeal with the Court of Appeal, which will now decide whether to grant the authority permission to have its case heard.

Parmar worked for Leicestershire County Council from 1989-97, joining Leicester when it took over responsibility for social services in the city from the county authority in 1997 and then working there until 2022, when she was dismissed. She is bringing a claim of unfair dismissal against the authority, which is expected to be heard later this year.

‘It feels like they don’t want to change’

Bindu Parmar

“This has been a very difficult time for both me and my family,” she said. “I loved my job, and I had dedicated a significant portion of my life to the council.

“In return, I was subjected to an investigation that was dragged on and on, despite no evidence to suggest my behaviour had been inappropriate or that I had behaved negatively towards my colleagues.

“At no point were the actions of my line manager called into question, and no wider internal investigation took place to respond to my own allegations of racial discrimination.

“Even after an employment tribunal ruled in my favour, Leicester City Council put every effort into appealing the decision.”

She added: “It just feels like they don’t want to change and don’t want to learn any lessons.”