A landmark case, which could herald new rights for Britain's six million carers, was taken to the European Court of Justice today (Tuesday 9th October) by the mother of a disabled son, who claims she was discriminated against at work because of her child.
Sharon Coleman, whose son Oliver was born with a rare condition affecting his breathing and was also deaf, says she was forced to resign from her job as a legal secretary after being harassed by her employers and refused adjustments, such as flexible working, granted to colleagues without disabled children.
The case, which is being supported by the new Equality and Human Rights Commission jointly acting with Bates Wells and Braithwaite London LLP, was originally referred to the ECJ by an Employment Tribunal in order to decide the extent to which a European Directive regarding equal treatment in employment prohibits "discrimination by association" and should be applied to British law.
The Court is expected to give its decision in January and if the ruling goes in Ms Coleman's favour, it will give significant new protection to people looking after sick relatives.
The Commission's legal group director, John Wadham, said: " This is truly a landmark case and I hope it will have a real impact on the lives of millions of carers, sixty per cent of whom are women. People will no longer have to live in fear of losing their jobs whilst looking after their loved ones, and employers will have to become more flexible. I hope that employers will recognise the importance of this case, which should inform best practice and the best employers anyway."
Robin Allen QC told the ECJ that during Ms Coleman's employment at Attridge Law Solicitors, his client alleges she was subjected to a range of discriminatory experiences. These included:
-
Criticism for seeking to take parental leave at the end of her maternity leave, in the circumstances where the parent of a non-disabled child would not have been so criticised
-
On returning from maternity leave she was not allowed to return to her existing job, where the parent of a non-disabled child would be able to return
-
she was criticised and described as 'lazy' when she sought to take time off to care for her child, whereas others were allowed time off for the purposes of childcare for their non-disabled children
-
She was late on occasion, because of problems with care for her child. She was told she would be sacked if she came to work late. No such threat was made in the case of other employees with non-disabled children who were late because of childcare problems
-
Comment was made that her "fucking child" was "always fucking sick" and that she was using her child to manipulate her work conditions.
-
She was not allowed to work from home, whereas others were allowed to do so when they had difficulties with care for non-disabled children
-
She lodged a grievance against her ill treatment, but that grievance was not dealt with properly or at all. Instead she was told to withdraw her grievance because " money talks and shit walks." In those circumstances, she felt constrained to withdraw her grievance. The parent of a non-disabled child would not have been dealt with in this manner.
-
She was placed in a pool selected for redundancy, after she had indicated she wished to make a formal request for flexible working to care for her child. Though she chose to take redundancy (because she could not bear to work any longer with the respondents), the process of redundancy was a sham.
Mr Allen argued that the European Directive, known as the Framework Directive, which came into force in 2000, gives protection against harassment and discrimination not only to those who are disabled, but also to people who are discriminated against because of their association with disabled people.
Ms Coleman Fighting this case has taken a lot of courage, and I really hope that we get a positive result from the European Court. It is so important for people who care for disabled children not be forced to choose between their job or being a mother."
Lucy McLynn, a partner at Bates Wells & Braithwaite, said : "The ECJ's ruling will provide much needed clarity about the scope of protection from disability discrimination, and also, by implication, other forms of discrimination "by association". A ruling in Sharon's favour will, for example, confirm that the carers of elderly relatives are protected under age discrimination legislation."
For further information please contact Nicola Pazdzierska at the Press Office on 0203 117 0249 or 07791 015009.