A woman who claimed she was forced to resign from her job because she has a disabled son yesterday won her legal battle over discrimination.
Sharon Coleman says she suffered "discrimination by association" in breach of EU rules - and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg agreed.
The landmark ruling declared an EU Directive banning employment discrimination on grounds of disability is not limited to disa-bled people, but covers carers as well.
The verdict effectively gives new rights to millions.
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 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.
She was already working for 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, but accepted voluntary re-dundancy 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.
She claimed she was described as "lazy" at work, and abusive and insulting comments were made about her and her child.
An Employment Tribunal hearing the 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.
Yesterday the Luxembourg judges ruled "Community (EU) law protects an employee who has suffered discrimination on grounds of his child's disability".
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".
The ruling said the effective application of the law meant the burden of proof fell on the employer, who had to show there had been no breach of the principle of equal treatment.
The judges pointed out Ms Coleman had complained her employers refused to allow her to do her previous job on her return from maternity leave, refused to offer working hour flexibility, and made "abusive and insulting" comments about her and her child...SUPL:
