## Facts

- Sharon Coleman worked as a legal secretary at a London law firm beginning in 2001.
- Her son, born in 2002, had serious disabilities, and she was his primary caregiver.
- She alleged her employer refused to return her to her prior position after maternity leave, denied flexible work arrangements granted to others with non-disabled children, and subjected her to abusive comments about her and her son.
- She resigned and accepted voluntary redundancy in March 2005, claiming she was effectively forced to do so.
- She filed claims in a UK employment tribunal alleging constructive dismissal and disability discrimination based on adverse treatment connected to her son’s disability.
- The employer argued disability discrimination protections applied only to persons who themselves are disabled.
- The UK tribunal stayed proceedings and referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for interpretation of the EU equal treatment framework for employment.

## Issues

1. Whether the EU employment equality framework’s ban on direct disability discrimination is limited to employees who are themselves disabled.
2. Whether that framework also prohibits less favorable treatment of a non-disabled employee because of the disability of someone with whom the employee is associated (e.g., a child).
3. Whether harassment related to the disability of an associated person is prohibited even when the targeted employee is not disabled.

## Decision

- The Court held that the prohibition on direct discrimination on grounds of disability is not confined to persons who are themselves disabled.
- Treating a non-disabled employee less favorably because the employee is primarily caring for a disabled child can constitute direct discrimination on grounds of disability.
- The Court held that the prohibition on harassment related to disability likewise is not limited to disabled persons; harassment of a non-disabled employee tied to an associated person’s disability is covered.
- The Court left to the national tribunal the fact-finding on comparators, causation, and application of the EU interpretation within the domestic proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- Anti-discrimination protections keyed to a protected “ground” (such as disability) can apply even when the claimant does not personally have that characteristic, if the adverse treatment is because of that ground.
- Direct discrimination occurs when an employee is treated less favorably than a comparator in a comparable situation and the reason for the treatment is disability (including disability of a person closely associated with the employee).
- Harassment is prohibited when unwanted conduct related to disability has the purpose or effect of violating dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment, including where the conduct targets an associated non-disabled employee.
- In employment discrimination claims, once facts support a presumption of discrimination, the burden may shift to the employer to show no breach of equal treatment; application depends on the national tribunal’s findings.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted EU employment equality law to prohibit disability-based direct discrimination and harassment against non-disabled employees when the adverse treatment is triggered by their association with a disabled person, requiring national tribunals to apply that interpretation to the facts.


Coleman v. Attridge Law, C-303/06, 2008 E.C.R. I-5603 (C.J.E.U. 2008)