Workers can suffer discrimination 'by association'

The statement by an advocate-general of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerned the case of a mother of a disabled child, who claimed she left her job after being "harassed" by her employers.

Sharon Coleman, 42, was working with law firm Attridge Law when she gave birth to her son in 2002. He suffers from serious respiratory problems, including apnoeic attacks - an involuntary halt to breathing.

As primary carer, Ms Coleman wanted flexible working arrangements, but claimed this was refused. She accepted voluntary redundancy in March 2005 and began a claim for constructive dismissal five months later.

Advocate general, Poiares Maduro of the ECJ said that treating employees less favourably because of their caring responsibilities for disabled relatives was unlawful.

A full panel of European judges will now consider the legal opinion, and the case is set to return to an employment tribunal in London later this year.

Robust equality

Advocate-general Maduro confirmed that, in his legal opinion, a seven-year-old European Union law establishing equal treatment at work "protects people who, although not themselves disabled, suffer direct discrimination and/or harassment in the field of employment and occupation because they are associated with a disabled person".

He explained: "Directly targeting a person who has a particular characteristic is not the only way of discriminating against him or her; there are also other, more subtle and less obvious ways of doing so. One way of undermining the dignity and autonomy of people... is to target not them, but third persons who are closely associated with them.

"A robust conception of equality entails that these subtler forms of discrimination should also be caught by anti-discrimination legislation."

'Significant case'

Ms Coleman was supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, whose legal director John Wadham, said: "This is a highly significant case which we hope will make a real difference to the lives of Britain's six million carers, more than half of whom are women."

Lucy McLynn of law firm Bates, Wells & Braithwaite, which also supported Ms Coleman, said if the case was successfully concluded then the Disability Discrimination Act would be interpreted in a different way, giving more protection to people looking after a disabled relative.

She added it could also mean that those caring for elderly relatives would be protected under age discrimination legislation.