Dr O M A Karim v Gmc — 2021

Dr O M A Karim, a mixed race Black African/European Muslim and registered medical practitioner, brought direct discrimination claims against the GMC, a qualifications body, arising out of the handling of a fitness to practise investigation that began in 2014 and continued until the MPT hearing in 2018. The tribunal identified Mr L, a white doctor, as the main comparator and examined a series of decisions about referrals to the Interim Orders Panel, whether allegations were pursued or closed, and the time taken to progress the case.

The tribunal accepted that not every complaint point involved less favourable treatment. It found no discrimination in some procedural steps, including the first referral to the IOP and certain decisions where the process did not permit the course the claimant said should have been taken. However, it held that there was a difference in treatment between the claimant and Mr L in the handling of substantially similar allegations, particularly the AR-related allegations, and in the way the Respondent kept the claimant's case under investigation when Mr L's case was not pursued in the same way.

The tribunal also found that the claimant's case was subject to a significant delay, which it rejected as being explained by complexity. It said the allegations were not complex in the way advanced by the Respondent, noted that much of the relevant evidence was available early, and considered that the linkage of the claimant's case with Mr Motiwala's was a choice made by the Respondent rather than something necessary to do justice. The tribunal considered the explanations given for the continuing investigation and the delay were not credible, and it took account of statistical material showing that BME doctors were more likely to be complained about, investigated, and sanctioned.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant's race discrimination complaint was well founded. It found that the difference in treatment compared with Mr L and the delay were on the grounds of race. By contrast, it dismissed the religion or belief claim, stating that there was no similar statistical evidence and that it did not consider the claimant's religion likely to have been a factor. The judgment directed the parties to provide dates for a later remedy hearing and did not quantify any monetary award in the liability judgment.