HOWZAT

“So, for example, an employee who is mocked for having an older partner, or a partner of a particular religion, or for their child’s sexuality, will now be protected.

“This protection will now extend throughout Europe.

“As a result, UK employers will need to examine their recruitment and equal opportunity policies carefully to ensure they do not directly discriminate against those who are caring for the disabled or the elderly for example.”

Ms Coleman’s case was backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission which said EU legal backing would ensure the UK’s Disability Discrimination Act would have to provide protection on the grounds of someone’s association with, and caring responsibilities for, a family member with a disability.

Ms Coleman, who is in her early 40s, took legal action after claiming she was forced to leave her job because she was not allowed as much flexibility in her work as parents of other children were.

She was already working for the law firm Attridge Law when she gave birth to a disabled 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 accepted voluntary redundancy in March 2005 and began a claim for constructive dismissal five months later.

She alleged discriminatory treatment because her son’s condition meant she was treated less favourably than other staff and was therefore forced to leave.

And she claimed she was described as “lazy” at work, and that abusive and insulting comments were made about her and her child.

An Employment Tribunal case decided to refer it to the European Court for a ruling on whether EU discrimination laws covering the disabled could also apply to people not themselves disabled, but closely associated with a disabled person.

Today the Luxembourg judges ruled that “Community (EU) law protects an employee who has suffered discrimination on grounds of his child’s disability”.

The judgment said: “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.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle