Key Facts
- •Omer Karim, a consultant urological surgeon, was subject to a GMC investigation from November 2014 to April 2018.
- •The investigation concluded with the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal (MPT) finding no misconduct.
- •Karim claimed racial and religious discrimination by the GMC during the investigation.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) upheld four complaints of racial discrimination.
- •The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) set aside the ET's findings and remitted the case.
- •Karim appealed to the Court of Appeal.
- •The Court of Appeal dismissed Karim's appeal, finding the ET's reasoning inadequate.
Legal Principles
Overarching objective of the GMC is the protection of the public (Medical Act 1983, s 1(1A)).
Medical Act 1983
In direct discrimination claims, there must be no material difference between the circumstances of the claimant and the comparator (Equality Act 2010, s 23).
Equality Act 2010
If facts suggest discrimination, the burden shifts to the respondent to show it did not discriminate (Equality Act 2010, s 136).
Equality Act 2010
Tribunals must give clear, reasoned decisions outlining factual conclusions and reasoning (Meek v City of Birmingham District Council).
Meek v City of Birmingham District Council
In discrimination cases, primary facts supporting inferences of discrimination must be clearly stated (Chapman v Simon).
Chapman v Simon
Tribunals must carefully explain conclusions if finding unconscious discrimination (Governors of Warwick Park School v Hazelhurst).
Governors of Warwick Park School v Hazelhurst
Outcomes
Court of Appeal dismissed Karim's appeal.
The ET's reasoning in upholding four complaints of racial discrimination was inadequate and did not meet legal standards for reasoned decisions. The ET's use of statistical evidence was flawed and did not properly address the respondent's counterarguments.
The four complaints of racial discrimination were remitted to a new ET for rehearing.
The Court of Appeal found the ET's reasoning insufficient to uphold the claims, requiring a fresh hearing to address the deficiencies identified.