ARTICLE
20 August 2025

Court Of Appeal Decision On Race Discrimination & The Respondent's Duty To Discharge The Burden Of Proof

d
didlaw

Contributor

Not just another law firm, the emphasis at didlaw has always been about providing an exceptional level of client service. This means clear and practical advice, explained in plain English. It means going the extra mile for our clients to find the right solution.

We started in 2008, focusing on helping people who were having difficulties around health and disability at work. By 2018, we were widely recognised as the UK’s leading disability discrimination lawyers.

In 2019 didlaw began a new chapter in its story. Our MD, Karen Jackson joined forces with employment barrister, Elizabeth George, to embark on the next ambitious phase of the firm’s journey.

The two women have expanded the firm’s offering to provide the same level of expertise but across all areas of employment and discrimination law. And they are committed to making didlaw a truly values-driven firm in everything that it does. You can read more about the values that drive them on our website.

In Leicester City Council v Parmar the Court of Appeal has confirmed that Mrs Parmar was directly discriminated against because of race.
United Kingdom Employment and HR

In Leicester City Council v Parmar the Court of Appeal has confirmed that Mrs Parmar was directly discriminated against because of race.

Mrs Parmar had been subjected to a disciplinary investigation, the allegations around which were vague. Mrs Parmar's belief was that she was being treated differently than her white colleagues who were in similar circumstances and that this was due to her race.

The first instance tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal both held that the facts in the case gave rise to an inference of discrimination.

When an inference of discrimination arises the burden of proof moves from the claimant to the respondent in the claim: it is for the respondent to show that race was not the reason for the treatment.

In both the ET and the EAT the Council failed to discharge the burden of proof and so a finding of direct discrimination was made. It is to be noted that it is extremely rare for claimants to succeed in direct discrimination claims. The Council appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed with both courts below. They held that the circumstances with Mrs Parmar's situation and those of her white colleagues were sufficiently similar to mean that her white colleagues were appropriate comparators and that the different treatment implied that an inference of discrimination had been made out. The Council had failed to comply with some of its disclosure obligations which assisted the Court in establishing an inference: it was incorrect to state that the burden of proof had automatically been shifted by these failures. That was only a part of the reasoning. It was clear that the tribunals below had considered the Council's ability to discharge the burden of proof. The Council had failed in this endeavour. The tribunals had not found the explanations of the Council to be credible and were entitled to do so. If the explanations were not credible the inference of discrimination could not be displaced leading to the finding that direct race discrimination had indeed occurred.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More