header-logo header-logo

Who cares wins?

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

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 the

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll