The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Leicester City Council v Parmar is a stark reminder for HR professionals: failure to apply disciplinary procedures fairly and transparently - especially when race is a factor - can have serious legal and reputational consequences.
This case isn’t just about one council’s missteps. It’s a wake-up call for all employers to revisit their policies, practices, and record-keeping. Here’s what happened—and what you should do now to protect your organisation.
The legal framework: two-stage test in discrimination claims
Under the Equality Act 2010, a claimant must first establish facts that could support an inference of discrimination. If that bar is met, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the treatment was not because of race (or another protected characteristic).
In Parmar, the Court reaffirmed that a difference in treatment between employees of different races in comparable circumstances is often enough to shift that burden. Once that happens, the employer must provide a credible, evidence-backed explanation—or risk losing the case.
The importance of comparators
A cornerstone of direct discrimination claims is whether the comparator (the person treated differently) is in a materially similar situation. In this case, Mrs Parmar was able to show that her white colleagues were treated more favourably under similar circumstances.
HR takeaway: If disciplinary or performance actions are handled differently for two employees in similar roles or circumstances, document the objective reasons why. If you don’t, a tribunal might infer that discrimination was the cause.
Disclosure failures can sink your case
The Council’s failure to disclose relevant documents allowed the tribunal to draw adverse inferences, contributing to the finding of race discrimination. The Court of Appeal noted that poor disclosure doesn’t automatically shift the burden of proof—but it certainly doesn’t help.
HR takeaway: In any investigation or tribunal process, timely, complete, and transparent disclosure is essential. Missing or withheld documents create doubt and can lead a tribunal to assume the worst.
When explanations don’t hold up
The Council’s justifications for treating Mrs Parmar differently were rejected by the tribunal as inconsistent and lacking credibility. Once the burden shifts, your explanations must be watertight, consistent, and supported by evidence.
HR takeaway: Ensure all disciplinary and grievance decisions are backed by:
Detailed, contemporaneous notes
Consistent application of policy
Clear comparator analysis
Evidence-based reasoning
Inconsistent or vague explanations are unlikely to persuade a tribunal.
HR checklist: practical steps to reduce risk
Review disciplinary, grievance, and performance management procedures for compliance with the Equality Act 2010.
Ensure comparator analysis is robust, logical, and well-documented.
Maintain comprehensive, contemporaneous records of all decisions.
Train managers on bias, fairness, and documentation best practices.
Respond fully and promptly to disclosure requests in tribunal proceedings.
Audit outcomes regularly to detect and address any emerging patterns of unequal treatment.
The bottom line
This case is a reminder that the burden of proof can shift quickly, and when it does, the strength of your HR records and the consistency of your processes will be under the spotlight.
Investing time now in training, policy clarity, and record-keeping can save your organisation significant legal cost, tribunal exposure, and reputational damage down the line.
LexHR supports HR professionals by delivering clear, up-to-date, legally accurate guidance—grounded in case law and compliant with the Equality Act. If you'd like to explore how AI can help your team stay ahead of risk, start a free trial today.
