header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 September 2008 / Juliet Carp
Issue: 7336 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Who cares wins?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Does Coleman offer carers a free standing right to flexible working arrangements asks Juliet Carp?

Sharon Coleman was a legal secretary working at Attridge Law. Her son suffers from medical conditions requiring special care. Coleman alleges that after her return to work from maternity leave she suffered discrimination because of her son's disability. She claims she was offered less flexible working arrangements than other parents who worked with her and that she was subject to abusive comments related to her son's disability. She accepted voluntary redundancy and later claimed she suffered discrimination contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995).
Language problems

The problem for Coleman is that the language of DDA 1995 does not appear to cover discrimination on grounds of someone else's disability. DDA 1995 is the means through which the disability-related aspects of the EC Equal Treatment Framework Directive 2000/78/EC (Framework Directive), are implemented in the UK. So, before making any decisions on the facts, the employment tribunal asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for clarification of the scope of

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll