Mrs K Furlong (in person) For the v Respondent — 2023

Mrs Furlong brought a claim of indirect sex discrimination in relation to the Insolvency Service Investigator Programme requirement that learners complete the course within two years. The tribunal found that this was the relevant PCP between September 2019 and March 2020, but that it ceased to apply to the claimant once the one-year Covid extension was granted in 2020. The respondent accepted that women were more likely to work part time and that women bore the greater burden of childcare responsibilities, but it denied that the PCP put women at a particular disadvantage.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been diligent and often did more research and detail than was required, and that her difficulties were materially affected by Covid-related childcare and home-working pressures. It accepted that she sometimes worked in her own time, but it also found there was no requirement from the respondent that she do so. The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not adduced evidence showing that part-time learners, as a group, were unable to complete the ISIP within normal working hours or that women sharing the protected characteristic were put to the same disadvantage.

The tribunal also relied on the respondent’s evidence that the programme was carefully managed through six-weekly reviews, tailored case allocation, study time, and an extension mechanism that had been used and had not been refused in any of the examples before it. The statistical material did not establish a disadvantage to part-time workers or women, and the tribunal regarded the claimant’s own experience as insufficient to prove group disadvantage. It therefore dismissed the claim.

In the alternative, the tribunal said the respondent had established justification: its aims were to get learners fully operational as soon as possible and to enable the timely accomplishment of its investigatory functions. It held that the two-year policy, together with supervision, tailored reviews and the possibility of extension, was a proportionate means of achieving those aims. On time limits, the tribunal said that if the claim had succeeded it would have extended time on just and equitable grounds, because the claimant only appreciated the possible discrimination later, the evidence was largely documentary, and there was no material prejudice to the respondent.