Mother’s landmark legal victory could herald new rights for Britain's six million carers

The mother of a disabled child is today a step closer to a precedent setting legal victory that could herald new rights for Britain’s six million carers, including those looking after older relatives.

The Advocate General (AG) of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said that treating employees less favourably because of their caring responsibilities for disabled relatives is unlawful. The AG stated that a European Directive regarding equal treatment in employment prohibits ‘disability discrimination by association’ and should apply to British law. This could also mean carers of elderly relatives will have the same protection.

Sharon Coleman, whose son Oliver was born with a rare condition affecting his breathing and was also deaf, brought a case claiming she was forced to resign from her job as a legal secretary after, she claims, being harassed by her employers and refused flexible working. She believes she was specifically targeted because she has a child with a disability, and was denied the flexible work arrangements offered to her colleagues without disabled children.

Ms Coleman's case, which is being supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission jointly acting with solicitors Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP, was referred to the ECJ by an employment tribunal in order to determine if ‘disability discrimination by association’ is unlawful.

The AG explained: "Directly targeting a person who has a particular characteristic is not the only way of discriminating against him or her; there are also other, more subtle and less obvious ways of doing so. One way of undermining the dignity and autonomy of people...is to target not them, but third persons who are closely associated with them."

The AG's opinion now needs to be ratified by the Court’s judges who heard Ms Coleman's case, but it is highly likely they will follow the AG’s lead.

Ms Coleman's victory will ensure that the UK's Disability Discrimination Act is interpreted to provide protection on the grounds of someone's association with, and caring responsibilities, for a family member with a disability. The ruling will also mean that those caring for elderly relatives are protected under age discrimination legislation.

Sharon Coleman said:
 ‘I am delighted that we are one step nearer to stopping people with caring responsibilities like me from being badly treated and harassed at work. It has taken a lot of courage to fight this case, but no-one should have to choose between caring for disabled relatives or their job. All I was ever asking for was an equal playing field.’

The Commission’s legal director, John Wadham, said:
‘This is a highly significant case, which we hope will make a real difference to the lives of Briton's six million carers, more than half of whom are women. People want to work and need to work and should not be forced to choose between their jobs and their loved ones.  If carers are forced out of the workplace or prevented from entering it because of discrimination on the grounds of their disabled relatives this condemns some families to poverty and is simply unjust. Valuable skills and experience are also lost to employers and the country.’

Lucy McLynn, partner in the employment team at Bates Wells & Braithwaite:
 ‘It is extremely encouraging that the Advocate General agrees with our position - that European law requires protection from discrimination for workers associated with disabled people or those caring for elderly relatives. 

If the Advocate General's opinion is followed by the European Court, this will have huge implications for carers in the UK.’

Notes to editors:

Ms Coleman's case is being taken with the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Bates Wells & Braithwaite solicitors (www.bwbllp.com).
Robin Allen QC (www.cloisters.com) told the ECJ that during Ms Coleman’s employment at Attridge Law Solicitors, she alleges she was subjected to a range of discriminatory experiences. These included the following:
• She was criticised for seeking to take parental leave at the end of her maternity leave, in the circumstances where the parent of a non-disabled child would not have been so criticised.
• On returning from maternity leave she was not allowed to return to her existing job, where the parent of a non-disabled child would be able to return.
• Comment was made that her ‘fucking child’ was "always fucking sick" and that she was using her child to manipulate her work conditions.
• She was criticised and described as 'lazy' when she sought to take time off to care for her child, whereas others were allowed time off for the purposes of childcare for their non-disabled children.
• She was late on occasion, because of problems with care for her child. She was told she would be sacked if she came to work late. No such threat was made in the case of other employees with non-disabled children who were late because of childcare problems.

- BACK -