The Mediation Miss: How Leicester City Council’s Failure to Mediate Fueled a Discrimination Claim
The Core Failure
In Leicester City Council v Parmar [2025] EWCA Civ 952, the Council’s refusal to offer mediation before disciplining Bindu Parmar—an Asian head of service—became critical evidence of race discrimination. While white colleagues received informal resolution for similar conduct, Parmar faced immediate formal investigation. This disparity proved fatal to the Council’s defence.
Key Facts: Differential Treatment
- White Employees’ Cases:
- HM (White Head of Service):
- Swore loudly in open office, admitted unprofessional conduct
- Council action: Informal chat with manager (Ms. Lake), no investigation
- JD/JR Conflict:
- Public humiliation incident during training
- Council action: Mediation offered
- AE (White Head of Service):
- Sent aggressive emails demanding workload redistribution
- Triggered collective grievance from Parmar’s team
- Council action: No disciplinary measures
- Parmar’s Case:
- Faced vague allegations of “creating a detrimental environment”
- No specific incidents cited in disciplinary letter
- Council action:
- Immediate removal from role
- 5-month disciplinary investigation
- Suspension (despite 30-year unblemished record)
Why the Mediation Refusal Mattered
The Employment Tribunal (ET) identified the Council’s inconsistent approach as evidence of discrimination:
1. Breach of Internal Policy
- Council policies required considering mediation before formal discipline (ET Judgment §79.3).
- Missed opportunity: No explanation why mediation wasn’t offered to Parmar when used for comparable white staff.
2. Inferential Discrimination
- The ET concluded:
“In comparable situations involving white employees, Ms. Lake chose informal mediation. For Mrs. Parmar—after being accused of racial bias—she opted for drastic action.“
(§70)
- Legal consequence: This disparity shifted the burden of proof to the Council under s.136 Equality Act 2010.
3. Aggravating Factors
- Unexplained urgency: Disciplinary process launched days after Parmar raised concerns about racial bias.
- Lack of particulars: Allegations against Parmar remained vague, unlike specific incidents involving white staff.
- Destroyed evidence: Notes from witness interviews were deleted post-investigation, preventing Parmar from exonerating herself.
Court’s Verdict: A Costly Omission
The Court of Appeal upheld the ET’s finding that the failure to mediate was:
- Evidence of less favourable treatment: White employees received “softer” resolution pathways.
- Part of a discriminatory pattern: Only BAME employees faced formal discipline under Ms. Lake.
- Indicative of prejudice: The rushed investigation suggested retaliation for Parmar’s bias complaint.
3 Lessons for Employers
- Standardise Disciplinary Triggers
- Apply mediation/informal resolution criteria uniformly across all staff.
- Document why mediation is inappropriate if bypassed (e.g., gross misconduct).
- Train Managers on “Comparable Conduct”
- Scrutinise whether similar acts by different employees trigger consistent responses.
- Example: If swearing (HM) merits a chat, emails about workload (Parmar) shouldn’t justify suspension.
- Preserve All Evidence
- Leicester’s deletion of interview notes led to adverse inferences.
- Rule: Retain investigation materials until all litigation risks expire.
What the Court Held
- Mediation as Evidence of Disparate Treatment:
The failure to offer mediation was one of several factors proving less favourable treatment of Mrs. Parmar compared to white colleagues:
“In comparable situations involving white employees, Ms. Lake chose informal mediation. For Mrs. Parmar—after being accused of racial bias—she opted for drastic action.”
(ET Judgment §70, upheld by CA)
- Part of a Broader Pattern:
The Court inferred discrimination from the totality of evidence, including:
- Disciplinary investigations only against BAME employees,
- Destruction of evidence,
- Vague allegations against Parmar vs. specific incidents involving white staff,
- Inconsistent dispute resolution pathways.
- Critical Legal Principle:
While not explicitly stated in the quote, the Court endorsed the ET’s finding that:
“The Council’s deviation from its usual practice of offering mediation for similar conduct, combined with its harsh treatment of Mrs. Parmar, supported an inference of discrimination.”
(CA Judgment §§55, 76)
Why This Matters
- Not a Blanket Rule: Courts do not automatically infer discrimination solely from a failure to mediate.
- Context is Key: The inference arose because:
- Mediation was routinely offered to white employees for comparable issues,
- The Council breached its own policies,
- The omission fit a pattern of racial disparity.
- Practical Impact:
Employers who use mediation inconsistently risk converting a procedural misstep into evidence of bias.
The Court’s finding:
“The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the difference in treatment [including the denial of mediation] was part of a pattern from which race discrimination could be inferred.”
— Leicester City Council v Parmar [2025] EWCA Civ 952, §76
Key Takeaway for Employers
The Parmar case establishes that:
Selective denial of mediation may evidence discrimination when:
- It deviates from standard practice,
- It aligns with other procedural unfairness,
- The affected employee shares a protected characteristic.
Mediation isn’t mandatory—but inconsistency in offering it is legally perilous.
Practical Takeaway: Implement a Mediation First policy for all non-gross misconduct issues. Consistency isn’t just fair—it’s a legal shield.