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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll