header-logo header-logo

11 January 2007
Issue: 7255 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

ECJ to rule on equal treatment for carers

News

A mother who cares for her disabled son has won the right to bring an unfair treatment claim against her employer to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The Disability Rights Commission (DRC), which backed Sharon Coleman, says her case concerns the interpretation of the EU’s Equal Treatment Framework Directive and its impact on UK disability discrimination legislation.

Although she is not disabled, Coleman claims the Directive protects her from unfair treatment stemming from her association with her disabled son.
Coleman, a legal secretary, says she was subjected to unfair treatment by her employers before she resigned in March 2005. In particular, she claims she was criticised and described as ‘lazy’ when she wanted to take time off to care for her child, and was not allowed to work flexibly, unlike mothers of non-disabled children working for the same employer.

Her former employer argued that UK discrimination legislation did include protection from ‘associative discrimination’ and questioned the
authority of the chairman of the original tribunal to refer the issue to the ECJ.
However, Judge Peter Clark, sitting alone at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), held that an employment tribunal does have the power to make such a reference. He also agreed with the chairman that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 “is capable of interpretation, consistent with an interpretation of the Directive…to include associative discrimination”.

Agnes Fletcher, DRC assistant director of communications, says: “This case could have a major impact on the employment prospects of the six million people who provide unpaid care.”
 

Issue: 7255 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll