Carer brings hope to millions with landmark win on employment rights

A mother allegedly forced out of her job because of time spent looking after her disabled son has won a landmark legal case which promises to give new rights to Britain's millions of unpaid carers.

European judges in Luxembourg agreed unanimously that Sharon Coleman has the right to claim "discrimination by association" if she was harassed and branded lazy for wanting flexibility to look after the child.

The ruling establishes for the first time that Europe's ban on employment discrimination is not limited to disabled people but extends to those responsible for them or with close connections.

The European court of justice upheld a legal opinion by its advocate general Poiares Maduro in January that "one way of undermining the dignity and autonomy of people ... is to target not them, but third persons who are closely associated with them." He added: "A robust conception of equality entails that these subtler forms of discrimination should also be caught by anti-discrimination legislation."

Coleman, who worked as a legal secretary in south London, has fought her case for three years, after resigning from the Attridge Law partnership in Bermondsey and claiming constructive dismissal.

She said yesterday: "All I was ever asking for was an equal playing field with the same flexibility afforded to my colleagues without disabled children.

"This has been a long, hard battle and it is not over yet, but I am thrilled that the European court has ruled in my favour. This decision will mean so much to so many people."

Her case will now return to an employment tribunal in London which will rule on the facts, which are disputed by Attridge Law, and consider how British law needs amending. Coleman, who has avoided claiming "special" treatment for disability, has been supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The commission said the ruling ensured that Britain's Disability Discrimination Act would have to provide the extended protection. An estimated 6 million people in Britain act as voluntary carers.

The commission's legal director, John Wadham, said: "This is a very significant case, which has led to new rights for Britain's millions of carers, 60% of whom are women.

"In this day and age people increasingly have to balance caring responsibilities with work and it is vitally important that they are able to do so without being discriminated against or even forced out of the workforce. The commission took the view that people in Sharon's situation should not be left unprotected at work and this decision by the European judges has confirmed that."

Coleman described in evidence how she was picked on by managers after giving birth in 2002. Her son Oliver suffered from the start from deafness and respiratory problems, including apnoeic attacks, which halted breathing up to 60 times a day. She claimed that she was told by a partner that her "fucking child was always fucking sick" and her requests for time off were treated differently from colleagues who asked for time for hospital visits or other tasks involving their children.

The key passage of the court ruling says: "Where an employer treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than another employee in a comparable situation, and it is established that the less favourable treatment of that employee is based on the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such treatment is contrary to the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by the directive."

What it means

The ruling binds EU member courts only to extend employment protection to parents of disabled children. But the remarks of the advocate general, endorsed by the court, are a clear signal that the principle should extend to all carers and will eventually do so. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and groups such as Carers UK will now press for British law to be altered to take the broad approach.