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 congenital 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. Since then, Jayanee has disputed this ruling and taken matters to the Civil Courts Judgment Employment Appeal Tribunal 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. But he reserved his judgment and decided to refer the question to the European Court of Justice, on what the correct interpretation of Directive Advocate General's Opinion In the Advocate General's Opinion, Miguel Poiares Maduro generalised his statements for all the protected categories under the Framework Directive (religion, age, sexuality). He said, “One way of undermining the dignity and autonomy of people who belong to a certain group is to target not them, but third persons who are closely associated with them and do not themselves belong to the group." (para. 12) The preparatory argument is built around the driving force behind Article 13