Employment Appeal Tribunal reinterprets DDA Act

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://equalitylinda.blogspot.com/2010/ ... -1995.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From Linda Roys Blog - Always worth a look IMHO.

Employment Appeal Tribunal reinterprets Disability Discrimination Act 1995

To include associative discrimination

• Blake Lapthorn
• United Kingdom
• November 5 2010

The case of Mrs Coleman, the legal secretary who was not herself disabled but who alleged she was discriminated against on grounds of the disability of her son, has been well publicised. On the face of it the UK's Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) only protects a person who is actually disabled within the meaning of the DDA. Last year the European Court of Justice (ECJ) agreed that the EC Framework Directive on Equal Treatment, which imposes requirements on UK anti-discrimination law, does prohibit discrimination by association with a disabled person. In the latest stage, Mrs Coleman had to persuade the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that the DDA could be read to give effect to the ECJ's judgment. The EAT held that the DDA could be interpreted in this way, by adding words if necessary, because that is not incompatible with the underlying thrust of the DDA.

The significance of this stage of the case is that this extension of the DDA to include associative discrimination now applies to all employers. Without a binding decision of a UK court, in theory the ECJ's ruling could only be enforced by public sector workers. Now, unless there is a further appeal, it is binding UK law. The case also leaves other discrimination strands which may not be suitably worded to cover associative discrimination (most notably age discrimination) open to challenge on this point. Employers should ensure their equal opportunities and harassment policies are updated.

[brothermagrew]

Nice one brother Teebs

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

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).

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2008/C30306.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[norbert]

Anybody with issues with RM's attack dogs ATOS Origin ....please feel free ( with discretion of course ! or through CWU channels ) to contact email Philip.hendry@bbc.co.uk who is doing a BBC Debate re ATOS fabrications and lies on Nov 29th

We can't all be lazy old soldiers swinging the lead or professional claimers / skivvers & it's all sour grapes as RM would like everyone to believe ? :cfo :lfo :mfo