Leicester City Council v Bindu Parmar

The Court of Appeal dismissed the council's appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal and upheld the Employment Tribunal's finding that the council had directly discriminated against Mrs Parmar because of her race contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal correctly applied the two-stage burden of proof analysis (section 136 of the 2010 Act and the guidance in Igen) and proceeded from a finding of facts from which an inference of discrimination could properly be drawn to require the respondent to provide a non-discriminatory explanation. The ET's factual findings on the disparate treatment of comparators, the absence of particularised allegations against the claimant, the decision of a different investigator to discontinue the process, and adverse inferences drawn from failures of disclosure supported the conclusion that the council had not shown a non-discriminatory reason for its conduct.

Background and procedural history.

The claimant, Mrs Parmar, a former head of service at Leicester City Council, brought an employment tribunal claim alleging race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the council had discriminated against her by reason of race and adjourned remedy. The council's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was dismissed ([2024] EAT 85). The council obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal on 22 July 2025.

Nature of the claim and relief sought.

• Claim: direct race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 arising from a disciplinary investigation, temporary transfer/suspension and investigatory meetings.
• Relief sought in the ET: declaration and remedy for discrimination; remedy was adjourned after liability was found.

Issues framed by the courts.

• Whether the claimant had been treated less favourably because of her race (section 13 EA 2010).
• Whether the claimant established facts from which an inference of discrimination could properly be drawn so that the burden shifted to the council to prove a non-discriminatory reason (section 136 and Igen guidance).
• The evidential role of comparators (actual, hypothetical and evidential) and whether the ET properly relied on evidential comparators.
• Whether the ET lawfully drew adverse inferences from the council's failures of disclosure.

Court's reasoning (concise).

• The ET heard evidence, made detailed findings of fact and concluded there was a prima facie case: the council treated the claimant more severely than it treated or would have treated comparators (HM, AE and JD/other examples), and the only credible explanation was that race played a part.
• The ET properly treated the comparators as evidential comparators; it was not required to set out a line-by-line comparison of similarities and differences so long as factual descriptions made the comparison intelligible.
• The ET permissibly drew adverse inferences from the council's failure to disclose recordings and notes that were plainly relevant to the investigation and to why a subsequent investigator discontinued it; that failure was a legitimate factor in the overall evaluation but did not alone determine the outcome.
• The ET considered and rejected the council's non-discriminatory explanations in a detailed analysis (paragraph 79 of the ET judgment) and was entitled to find them not credible; if explanations are not credible they cannot displace an inference of discrimination.
• The EAT correctly applied the limited standard of appellate review on points of law and rejected the council's multiple grounds as either impermissibly 'pernickety' or unsustainable.

Wider context noted by the court: The Court reiterated the caution required on appellate review of ET findings of fact and the proper, limited role of the EAT and Court of Appeal on appeals on points of law from tribunals.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal concluded that neither the Employment Tribunal nor the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in law. The ET had properly applied the two-stage burden of proof under the Equality Act 2010, lawfully relied on evidential comparators and adverse inferences from non-disclosure as part of the factual matrix, and justifiably rejected the council's non-discriminatory explanations.

Employment Tribunal (liability found; judgment sent 22 March 2023) -> Employment Appeal Tribunal ([2024] EAT 85) dismissed -> Court of Appeal ([2025] EWCA Civ 952) appeal dismissed.