EAT reinterprets the DDA 1995.

I am indebted to Ted Stead for supplying the following.

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.