翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Coleophora agathella ・ Coleophora agenjoi ・ Coleophora agilis ・ Coleophora aglabitella ・ Coleophora agnatella ・ Coleophora agnosa ・ Coleophora agrianella ・ Coleophora agridensis ・ Coleophora ahenella ・ Coleophora alabama ・ Coleophora alabardata ・ Coleophora alashiae ・ Coleophora albacostella ・ Coleophora albadomina ・ Coleman University ・ Coleman v Attridge Law ・ Coleman v Power ・ Coleman v. Miller ・ Coleman v. Schwarzenegger ・ Coleman Vision Tennis Championships ・ Coleman W. Avery ・ Coleman Young ・ Coleman Young II ・ Coleman Zeno ・ Coleman's (NYCRR station) ・ Coleman, Alberta ・ Coleman, Arkansas ・ Coleman, California ・ Coleman, Florida ・ Coleman, Georgia Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Coleman v Attridge Law ： ウィキペディア英語版 Coleman v Attridge Law ''Coleman v Attridge Law'' (2008) (C-303/06 ) (and (AG Opinion )) is an employment law case heard by the European Court of Justice. The question is whether the European Union's discrimination policy covers not just people who are disabled (or have a particular sex, race, religion, belief and age) but people who suffer discrimination because they are related or connected to disabled people. At the beginning of 2008, Advocate General Maduro delivered his opinion, supporting an inclusive approach. He said discrimination law is there to combat all forms of discrimination, including those connected to protected groups of people. ==Facts== Sharon Coleman had a disabled son, Oliver, with bronchomalacia and congential laryngomalacia. She worked as a secretary for a small London law firm called Attridge Law (now rebranded EBR Attridge Solicitors LLP). They accused her of using her child as a way to manipulate requests for working time. 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). However, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 s 4, it states that one may consider oneself discriminated against (leading to unfair dismissal compensation) only if the treatment is "against a disabled person". Because Coleman was not herself disabled, the question was whether the 1995 Act had properly implemented the European Union Directive 2000/78/EC on the matter. In their defence against the claim for, Attridge law argued that the 1995 Act could not be interpreted in line with the directive, whatever it meant. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Coleman v Attridge Law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.