Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionDisabilityFlexible working

Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law

by Personnel Today 15 Jun 2008
by Personnel Today 15 Jun 2008

Ms Coleman, who cared for her severely disabled son, brought a claim against her former employers alleging that she had been treated less favourably because of his disability.

She complained that her former employers refused to allow her to return to her existing job after maternity leave, failed to give her the same amount of flexibility as staff with non-disabled children, disciplined her, and dealt with her grievances inadequately.

Coleman also argued that she was criticised for taking time off, and accused of using her son’s disability to her own advantage, which created a hostile working environment.

The employment tribunal, without making any findings of fact, referred Coleman’s case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to consider whether discrimination by association with a disabled person (in this case, Coleman’s son) was outlawed by the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (Directive).

If the directive prohibited associative discrimination, a tribunal would need to interpret the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) to give effect to the purpose of the directive, and Coleman could proceed with her claim.

The ECJ was asked to consider whether the directive only protected from direct discrimination and harassment people who were themselves disabled, or whether it would protect people who were treated less favourably or harassed on the ground of their association with a disabled person.

The Advocate General has now delivered an opinion on these questions. It is not legally binding, but the ECJ normally follows these recommendations. The Advocate General’s view is that the directive protects people from direct discrimination and harassment by association.

If the ECJ follows the Advocate General’s opinion, the employment tribunal will need to interpret the DDA to provide protection for those associated with disabled people.

Key points

  • The Advocate General’s opinion is that direct discrimination and harassment on the grounds of association with disabled people is unlawful.
  • This is not a legally binding decision, but the ECJ is likely to follow this opinion when it delivers its decision later this year.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

What you should do

  • Equal opportunities policies may need to be reviewed to expressly refer to discrimination by association.
  • Be careful when handling flexible working requests from carers of elderly or disabled people. When refusing a request, you must be satisfied that you have not treated them less favourably than someone whose circumstances are not materially different (such as requesting flexibility for childcare).

 

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
The Black Report: Practical implications
next post
Head to head: Sex discrimination

You may also like

Employees voting with feet as return-to-office pressure increases...

15 Jul 2025

Food sector warned it is facing a workforce...

14 Jul 2025

Steep reduction in recruitment in June

14 Jul 2025

Engineers prioritising benefits over pay

14 Jul 2025

TUC launches inspections of workplaces for heat safety

13 Jul 2025

Gregg Wallace case: don’t be too hasty to...

11 Jul 2025

How using data can transform return-to-office mandates

11 Jul 2025

Ministers loosen fire and rehire proposals in Employment...

10 Jul 2025

£188k tribunal award for director sacked after cardiac...

10 Jul 2025

It’s no secret – parity in the workplace...

10 Jul 2025

  • Empower and engage for the future: A revolution in talent development (webinar) WEBINAR | As organisations strive...Read more
  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+