Can furlough decision be a PCP in indirect discrimination claim

[verrhp92]

Hi there,

I am currently in dispute with my employer about my treatment over furlough. I was on furlough for the whole 18 months of the scheme and was the only employee on a flexi-furlough arrangement from Nov 2020 (out of a company of ~50). I believe the company's decision to both furlough me and not bring me back to be examples of indirect discrimination as they substantially disadvantaged me by not providing me the safety and structure of work. I have mental health issues that are accepted as a disability. The PCPs relied on are:

1. The Respondent’s practice and policy for placing employees on furlough leave;

1. The Respondent’s practice and policy for inviting employees back from furlough into their roles;

1. The Respondent’s practice and policy for allocating work and providing development opportunities;

The company clearly had policies for it's management of furlough that disadvantaged me. The scheme was reviewed and extended monthly so I believe this made it a practice.

The respondent has denied that these are PCPs.


Any help and clarification on this would be greatly appreciated and I thank members for their input in advance. PCPs are bloody confusing!!!

[ULA]

A provision criterion or practice (PCP) is a rule which, when applied to all, puts certain individuals at a disadvantage. The Equality Act does not unhelpfully define “provision criterion or practice” (PCP). This means it can have a very broad meaning. In reality, you need to establish that something at work, whether it is a rule, a practice, a requirement or a condition, puts you at a disadvantage because of a protected characteristic. In this case you would be trying to argue around your employer’s practices in relation to furlough leave as being a PCP.

Once you can establish that, then you must further go on to prove that, when the PCP was applied to you, it put you at a disadvantage because of, in this case, your disability.