Court of Justice of the European Communities

Published July 29, 2008

Coleman v Attridge Law (a Firm) and Another Case C-303/06

Before V. Skouris, President and Judges P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, A. Tizzano, M. Ilešic, J. Klucka, A. Ó Caoimh, T. von Danwitz and A. Arabadjiev Advocate-General M. Poiares Maduro (Opinion January 31, 2008)

Judgment July 17, 2008

The prohibition of direct discrimination against and harassment of disabled people in employment, provided for in the Community disability directive, was not limited to employees who were themselves disabled but extended to unequal treatment and harassment of a non-disabled employee for reasons connected with the disability of his child.

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities so held on a reference for a preliminary ruling under article 234 EC by the London South Employment Tribunal.

The claimant, Ms Sharon Coleman, a legal secretary working for the defendants, Attridge Law, a firm of solicitors in London, and Mr Steve Law, a partner in that firm, gave birth to a son who suffered from apnoeic attacks and congenital laryngomalacia and bronchomalacia and needed special care. The claimant was his primary carer.

After ceasing her employment, the claimant brought a claim of unfair constructive dismissal against the defendants, alleging breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which, by virtue of amendments made by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations (SI 2003 No 1673), transposed into United Kingdom law Council Directive 2000/78/EC of November 27, 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L303/16).

In the proceedings before the employment tribunal, the reference to the European Court was made on the basis of a presumed set of facts, not yet established, which included that on the claimant’s return from maternity leave, she had been treated in a way that parents of non-disabled children would not have been, in that she had, inter alia, not been allowed to return to her existing job and had less flexibility of working hours, and had been subjected to abusive and insulting comments about her and her child.

Article 1 of the directive provides: “The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of ... disability ... as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the member states the principle of equal treatment.”

Article 2 provides: “(1) For the purposes of this Directive, the ‘principle of equal treatment’ shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in article 1.

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones