Coleman v Attridge Law
The prohibition of direct disability discrimination and harassment protects an employee who is treated less favourably because of the disability of her child, although she is not disabled herself.
Facts
Ms Coleman worked as a legal secretary for a firm of solicitors. Her son was disabled, and she was his primary carer. She claimed that she had been treated less favourably than other employees with non disabled children, including being refused flexible working, called lazy when she asked for time off to care for her son, and subjected to abusive comments about her son's disability. She was eventually forced to resign. The question was whether the Employment Equality Framework Directive protected a person who was not disabled herself.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the directive prohibited direct discrimination and harassment against an employee because of the disability of her child, whose care she provided. The principle of equal treatment was not limited to people who were themselves disabled, but extended to discrimination on grounds of disability, including discrimination by association. The ruling led to the Equality Act 2010 defining direct discrimination as less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic, without requiring that the characteristic be the claimant's own.
Related cases on discrimination at work
- Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32, [2004] ICR 954
- Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] UKHL 48, [2001] 1 WLR 1947
- Essop v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27, [2017] 1 WLR 1343
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Forstater v CGD Europe [2022] ICR 1
- Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15, [2012] ICR 704
- Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142, [2005] ICR 931
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
