header-logo header-logo

11 September 2008 / Juliet Carp
Issue: 7336 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Who cares wins?

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll