Council loses appeal in race discrimination case

A judge has dismissed an appeal over an employment tribunal that found a council racially discriminated against an employee.

A panel in April 2023 found "race played a part" in decisions made by Ruth Lake, a senior member of staff at Leicester City Council, in relation to social worker Bindu Parmar.

The authority's appeal was dismissed on Tuesday on all its 11 grounds.

A city council spokesperson said the authority was considering challenging the decision.

Mrs Parmar, a British national of Indian origin, claimed she was discriminated against after she was made the subject of a disciplinary investigation in January 2021.

A report into the tribunal in 2023 said Mrs Parmar was accused of not acting in line with leadership standards but the panel found there was "nothing of substance" to start an investigation and that there was "no other credible explanation" for the way she was treated.

The local authority argued in its appeal that the panel had misapplied the law, used insufficient grounds to shift the burden of proof on to the authority during the tribunal and failed to show adequate reasoning for its conclusion.

In his published appeal judgement summary, Judge James Tayler said: "The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the burden of proof had shifted to the respondent to disprove discrimination and that it had failed to do so."

Mrs Parmar, who is not currently in employment, told the BBC she felt "vindicated" by the dismissal but was too "anxious" to return to the same line of work.

The 58-year-old, who said she worked at the council for 33 years, added she was "shocked" that the council decided to appeal against the ruling in the first place.

"Since last year’s judgement there’s been no acknowledgement that anything was wrong," she said.

"It just feels like they don’t want to change and don’t want to learn any lessons."

Ms Lake appears to still be employed by the council at the time of publication, according to the authority's website.

Concluding his 37-page long published report, the judge said: "I regret that this judgment has ended up being so long; I have not had the time to make it any shorter.

"If I had, I might merely have said that this is just the type of appeal that the Court of Appeal warned against in [another case]."

The judge referenced mention of the "correct approach" to interpreting employment tribunals which had been reiterated by the Court of Appeal, stating they must be read "fairly and as a whole" and not focusing on passages in isolation.

A city council spokesperson said: “We are very disappointed and do not agree with the judgement in this case. We are therefore considering an appeal.

“In view of this, it would not be appropriate for us to comment further at this time.”

A further appeal would be dealt with by the Court of Appeal.

Follow BBC Leicester on Facebook, on X, or on Instagram. Send your story ideas to [email protected] or via WhatsApp on 0808 100 2210.