Landmark victory for carer mother

A legal secretary who claimed her bosses penalised her for having a disabled son has won her battle over discrimination in a landmark case.

Human rights court judges today agreed that Sharon Coleman from Bermondsey suffered " discrimination by association" in breach of EU rules.

The verdict from the European Court of Justice effectively gives new rights to millions of carers and means employers will have to overhaul their recruitment policies. They will also have to grant flexible working requests from staff with disabled relatives. Lawyers acting for Ms Coleman brought the case after she said she was forced to leave her job at Attridge Law because bosses would not allow her the same work flexibility as other parents at the firm.

Ms Coleman, 41, resigned in March 2005 after claiming she was described as "lazy" for wanting time off to look after son Oliver. He was born with a rare condition affecting his breathing which meant she had to give him special care. She claims a partner also said her "f ***ing child was always 'f***ing sick".

Until now, disability discrimination claims could only be brought by the person who is disabled. Ms Coleman's case was the first to claim suffering "by association".

She said she wanted to make it easier for other parents of disabled children to hold down a job.

Ms Coleman said: "They knew about my son's problems because I took him into the office, but they wouldn't allow me to work flexibly to make it easier to look after him. Other members of staff were taking time off for hospital appointments or worked from home but my requests were always turned down."

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said the case had huge implications for Britain's six million carers. Discrimination experts also said the ruling was very significant.

Ed Williams, of law firm Cloisters, said: "There are literally millions of carers in the UK and the rest of the EU who now have greater protection against discrimination."

Stephen Law, a partner at Attridge Law, also had a disabled son and he and his firm have always fiercely contested Ms Coleman's claims.