F Atif v Dolce & Gabbana UK Ltd
[2024] EAT 47
Leicester City Council v B Parmar
4 June 2024
[2024] EAT 85
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A woman of Indian origin was unfairly disciplined at work, while similar actions by white colleagues were overlooked. The court agreed that this was because of her race, and the council's appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •Mrs. Parmar, a British National of Indian origin, was a Head of Service for Leicester City Council.
- •She was subjected to a formal disciplinary investigation, while other employees, particularly white employees, facing similar or less serious allegations were not.
- •The investigation was eventually dropped, with the council unable to substantiate the allegations.
- •Mrs. Parmar claimed race discrimination.
Legal Principles
Direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
Equality Act 2010, sections 13, 23, 136
Burden of proof in discrimination cases
Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142, Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] EWCA Civ 33
Use of comparators in discrimination claims
Martin v St Francis Xavier Sixth Form College Board of Governors [2024] EAT 22
Appellate review of Employment Tribunal decisions
British Telecommunications Plc v Sheridan [1990] IRLR 27, Brent London Borough Council v Fuller [2011] ICR 806, DPP Law Ltd v Greenberg [2021] IRLR 1016
Outcomes
The Employment Tribunal's decision was upheld.
The EAT found that the Employment Tribunal correctly shifted the burden of proof to the respondent due to the disparity in treatment between the claimant and other employees, and the respondent failed to provide a non-discriminatory explanation.
The claimant's allegations of race discrimination were upheld.
The Employment Tribunal found that the claimant was treated less favorably than a hypothetical white comparator would have been in the same or similar circumstances.