Coleman, represented by London law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite, claimed unfair dismissal as a result of her treatment (under the Employment Rights Act 1996, s.94).
Since then, Jayanee has disputed this ruling and taken matters to the Civil Courts Peter Clark J for the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that it was wrong to say the Act could not be interpreted in line with the Directive.
He also referred to Joseph Raz, on the idea that autonomy presupposes that individuals have available number of valuable choices, and the law is to be concerned in protecting them.
The ECJ released its judgment on 31 July 2008, and held that Sharon Coleman would succeed in her suit against the law firm.
The principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Directive in that area applies not to a particular category of person but by reference to the grounds mentioned in Article 1.
That interpretation is supported by the wording of Article 13 EC, which constitutes the legal basis of Directive 2000/78, and which confers on the Community the competence to take appropriate action to combat discrimination based, inter alia, on disability.
On that preliminary point, in EBR Attridge Law LLP & Anor v Coleman [2009] UKEAT 0071 09 3010 (30 October 2009) the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that for an employer to treat an able-bodied employee caring for a disabled child less favourably than another employee in a comparable situation was associative discrimination, notwithstanding the specific references in the Disabilit.