Key Facts
- •The claimant, a Black African/European Muslim consultant urological surgeon, brought a claim against the General Medical Council (GMC) for direct race discrimination.
- •The GMC investigated allegations of misconduct against the claimant, ultimately referring some allegations to a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT), which did not find misconduct.
- •The employment tribunal upheld some of the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination, finding the burden of proof had shifted.
- •The GMC appealed to the EAT, arguing the tribunal's decision was not Meek-compliant and contained conflicting findings.
- •The claimant relied on statistical evidence showing over-representation of BME doctors in GMC referrals and sanctions.
- •The GMC presented research suggesting no evidence of racial bias in its processes.
Legal Principles
Definition of direct discrimination
Equality Act 2010, section 13(1)
Requirement for no material difference between circumstances when comparing cases
Equality Act 2010, section 23(1)
Shifting of the burden of proof in discrimination cases
Equality Act 2010, section 136
Requirements for a Meek-compliant judgment
Meek v City of Birmingham DC [1987] EWCA Civ 9
Appropriate comparator must share relevant circumstances
Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC [2003] UKHL 11, Stockton-on-Tees BC v Aylott [2010] EWCA Civ 910, Macdonald v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 34
Outcomes
The EAT allowed the GMC's appeal.
The employment tribunal's decision was not Meek-compliant, contained contradictory findings, failed to adequately engage with the GMC's case, and improperly relied on statistical evidence without addressing the GMC's counter-evidence.
Four specific complaints of race discrimination were remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.
These complaints related to the second IOP referral, failure to progress allegations against a comparator, proceeding with allegations despite concerns about a witness's reliability, and the delay in the investigation.