Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom)) - S. Coleman v Attridge Law, Steve Law
(Social policy − Directive 2000/78/EC − Equal treatment in employment and occupation − Articles 1, 2(1), (2)(a) and (3) and 3(1)(c) − Direct discrimination on grounds of disability − Harassment related to disability − Dismissal of an employee who is not himself disabled but whose child is disabled − Included − Burden of proof)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Employment Tribunal
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: S. Coleman
Defendants: Attridge Law, Steve Law
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Employment Tribunal - Interpretation of Articles 1, 2(2)(a) and 2(3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) - Scope of the term 'disability' - Possibility of extending it to a person who is closely associated with a disabled person and has been discriminated against by reason of that association - Employee bringing up a disabled child on her own
1. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled. Where an employer treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than another employee is, has been or would be treated 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 Article 2(2)(a).
2. Directive 2000/78, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (3) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of harassment laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled. Where it is established that the unwanted conduct amounting to harassment which is suffered by an employee who is not himself disabled is related to the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such conduct is contrary to the prohibition of harassment laid down by Article 2(3).
____________1 - OJ C 237, 30.09.2006.