Carer discrimination ruling welcomed

AN IRISH organisation campaigning for rights for the disabled has welcomed a European Court of Justice ruling in favour of a woman who claims she had to resign from her job because she has a disabled son.

Inclusion Ireland welcomed the landmark judgment made in Luxembourg yesterday in favour of Englishwoman Sharon Coleman, who said she suffered "discrimination by association", breaching EU rules.

The court declared that an EU directive banning employment discrimination on grounds of disability is not limited to disabled people themselves, but covers their carers as well.

Ms Coleman 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.

Deirdre Carroll, chief executive officer of Inclusion Ireland, said she has encountered people in similar positions to Ms Coleman in Ireland and yesterday's judgment was good news for such individuals. "We have research which shows women who have children with severe disabilities are disadvantaged in staying in a job or returning to work.

"I have seen people in Ireland who would wish to job-share or work reduced hours because they have to care for a disabled child and employers would not accommodate them so they have had to give up work completely."

Ms Coleman was working for law firm Attridge Law when she gave birth to a disabled son in 2002. As primary carer, she wanted flexible working arrangements, but accepted voluntary redundancy in March 2005 and began a claim for constructive dismissal five months later.

The judges said the EU directive was designed to combat all forms of discrimination and applied not to a particular category of person but "to the nature of the discrimination". "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 . . . such treatment is contrary to the prohibition of direct discrimination," the European Court of Justice said.