What is a Section 278 Agreement?

A Section 278 Agreement is a legal agreement between a developer and a highway authority to carry out highway works.

Court Of Appeal Confirms Race Discrimination Finding Against Council

Understanding Direct Discrimination
Under the Equality Act 2010, direct discrimination happens when someone is treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic, such as race. To succeed in a direct discrimination claim, an employee must show:

Facts from which discrimination could be inferred.
A suitable comparator – someone in similar circumstances who was treated more favourably.
If this is established, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show that the treatment was not discriminatory.

Leicester City Council v Parmar
Mrs Parmar, a British employee of Indian origin, worked as a senior social worker for the Council. She was investigated for misconduct and temporarily removed from her role. She claimed this was direct race discrimination.

She highlighted that:

The only other senior staff members investigated in this way were also of Asian origin.
No white colleagues of similar seniority had been treated in the same way.
The same manager had only commissioned disciplinary investigations against Asian staff.

Both the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed that there was enough evidence to suggest possible discrimination, shifting the burden to the Council to justify its actions. The Council failed to do so. The Council appealed this finding to the Court of Appeal.

What the Court of Appeal said
The appeal was dismissed. Key points included:

The comparators used were appropriate, even though their situations weren’t identical.
The tribunal didn’t believe the Council’s explanation (such as reliance on HR advice or witness interviews) was credible – and if the explanation doesn’t hold up, it can’t disprove discrimination.

Lessons for HR

Consistency is key. Always follow the same process when handling disciplinary matters to reduce the risk of discriminatory treatment.

Flex with care. If a different approach is needed in a specific case, keep a clear record of why. This helps show that decisions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons

Document decisions. Ensure any deviation from normal process is supported by written justification to protect against future claims.

This case is a reminder that consistency, transparency and well documented decision making are essential tools for HR when navigating employee relations fairly and lawfully.