header-logo header-logo

12 February 2016 / David Mitchell
Issue: 7686 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Collateral damage

nlj_7686_mitchell

David Mitchell examines the implications of extending associative discrimination in the Chez case

Last July the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) handed down judgment in CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia: C-83/14 [2015] All ER (EC) 1083. According to the CJEU, it was possible to construe Art 2(2)(b) of the Race Equality Directive 2000/43/EC which protects against indirect discrimination, as also protecting against “associative” indirect discrimination, thereby extending the principle of associative discrimination established in Coleman v Attridge Law C-303/06 [2008] All ER (EC) 1105. This article will consider the extent to which the concept of associative discrimination set out in Coleman was extended by Chez and what implications this might have for domestic law in the UK.

To recap, in Coleman the CJEU interpreted the EC Framework Employment Directive 2000/78 purposively, in order to permit Ms Coleman to bring claims of disability discrimination against her employer. While Ms Coleman was not herself a disabled person, she was the carer of her disabled son and her complaint

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll