This prompted governments and international organizations3 to revisit laws and policies to curb its proliferation. The recognition of the most essential human rights, particularly to children4 and women5 , in legislative enactments and judicial pronouncements, is a welcomed development amongst the community of workers but employers are seemingly reluctant to fully implement as it is perceived as an intrusion of its management prerogative to exercise freedom of choice as well. It is argued that employers have the freedom to set the standards of employment including the criteria for selection, working conditions and other badges of employee control. The imposition of legislative enactment and its judicial interpretation of additional benefits are characterized as usurpation of employers’ prerogative. Indeed, the economic equilibrium requires a balancing act between expanding the rights of workers pursuant to the social justice principle and the rights of employers to profit as well as to retain competent and efficient workers supportive of its vision. It must therefore be recognized that in conferring rights to workers it must not entail the persecution of the employers. This paper aims to show that the expanded benefits and recognition of the workers’ rights is not detrimental to the employers as contented and happy workforce is more conscientious and productive which ultimately translates to better business output and profit. For this purpose, the employment condition of a working carer shall be examined not only for the legal controversy it generates but its social and economic implications as well. This issue has spawned debates warranting a closer scrutiny on whether the present laws and policies are sufficient to protect and promote the interest of the working carers. The backdrop for the discussion shall be the lawsuit lodged by Ms. C against her London law firm employer who allegedly harassed her out of her job for requesting time off to care for her severely disabled son. It is claimed that the employer’s act is discriminatory which constitutes as automatically unfair ground for termination. This paper shall discuss the grounds upon which the petition may be sustained and if warranted, to make recommendations to enhance the protection accorded the workings carers. The ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the parallel case of Coleman v. Attridge Law6 may be relevant to state in the determination of Ms. C’s fate. In the Coleman case, it was declared that “discrimination by association” is unlawful. Direct discrimination and harassment are prohibited notwithstanding that they are not personally directed against the disabled person. So also, the complainant alleged that her employer refused to give her the same flexible working hours accorded to her coworkers whose children were not afflicted with disability. She further asserted that abusive and insulting comments were made against her and her child when she asked for time off or modified working hours which had not happened to her coworkers with non-disabled children. The employer denied the allegations and averred that the complaint is untenable as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) is limited to discriminatory and harassment acts directed against the disabled person. However, the European Framework Employment Directive (EFED) as well as the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) supports the view that claims of discrimination may be asserted by people associated with the
Anti-Discrimination Policies: Its Effect Upon Carers Discrimination of any kind is akin to a plague that governments and international organizations1 have worked closely towards its eradication. Despite these joint efforts, human rights violations and civil liberties infringements remained prevalent…
The term Intellectual property is a legal concept that provides exclusive rights to the owners of the property to insure some ‘intangible ‘ objects that are often over looked or taken for granted. Some of them are works of artistic importance, important scientific discoveries, musical and literary assets and so on.
There are also broad areas of employment law that forbid discrimination and harassment based upon certain aspects of an individual’s background or gender. The law, however, has not specifically designated that carers is a protected class when it comes to discrimination and harassment, which means that, presumably, an individual may still be fired if they need to take time off to care for a loved one.
The European Union (EU) which came into existence on 25th of March, 1957 holds its aim towards promotion of economic activities with a balanced and continuous expansion of activities and accelerated enhancement of standard of living and to build stronger relationship between the states that belong to the union.
that individuals who are carers are entitled to have flexible working schedules if they have good reason, and an employer cannot unreasonably deny this. There are also broad areas of employment law that forbid discrimination and harassment based upon certain aspects of an
This therefore means that any group or individual acting in behalf of the government will be covered by the Fourth Amendment, and that private groups or individuals are not included (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 199).
=> The Fourth