Leicester City Council v B Parmar
[2024] EAT 85
D Martin v The Board of Governors of St Francis Xavier 6th Form College
27 February 2024
[2024] EAT 22
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A teacher claimed his college unfairly disciplined him because of his race. The court looked at whether other employees (comparators) were treated differently. The court decided the college treated him the same as a similar white employee, so the teacher wasn't discriminated against and the dismissal claim failed too.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Martin, a black British teacher, was employed by St. Francis Xavier 6th Form College since 2001.
- •He was late for work on May 26, 2017, causing disruption to exams.
- •A disciplinary investigation followed, leading to a disciplinary hearing scheduled for September 8, 2017.
- •Mr. Martin resigned before the hearing, claiming constructive unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) rejected his claims, a decision appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
- •The EAT considered the use of comparators (actual, evidential, hypothetical) in discrimination cases and the shifting burden of proof under the Equality Act 2010.
Legal Principles
Direct race discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favorably than others because of their race.
Equality Act 2010, section 13(1)
Comparators in discrimination cases can be actual (statutory), evidential, or hypothetical.
Equality Act 2010, section 23; Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; Vento; Watt v Ahsan; Hewage v Grampian Health Board; Kalu v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
The burden of proof in discrimination cases can shift to the respondent if facts suggest a contravention, unless the respondent shows otherwise.
Equality Act 2010, section 136
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer commits a repudiatory breach of contract, accepted by the employee as termination.
Not explicitly sourced but discussed
Appeals against ET factual findings succeed only if the decision is perverse (no reasonable tribunal would reach it).
Crofton v Yeboah; British Telecommunications PLC v Sheridan
Appeals based on inadequate reasons require demonstrating that the Tribunal failed to give reasons sufficient to allow parties to understand its decision.
DPP Law v Greenberg
Outcomes
The EAT dismissed Mr. Martin's appeal.
The EAT found the ET did not err in law, reach a perverse decision, or give inadequate reasons. The ET's findings regarding comparators (Mr. White as an actual comparator, others as not) were deemed reasonable.