EA 2010 therefore the complainant need not herself possess the protected characteristic relied on: see Coleman v Attridge Law (Case C-303/06) [2008] ICR 1128, which held that the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive (2000/78) protects those who, although not themselves disabled, nevertheless suffer direct discrimination or harassment because of their association with a disabled person. Accordingly, the section 13(1) prohibition includes direct discrimination based on perception, whether or not shared by the person being perceived, and by association. We return to this point below (see paras 250 to 257).
141. Gender reassignment discrimination is covered by section 13 save in cases of absence from work. In these cases, different protection is provided in section 16, which defines direct discrimination in relation to cases of absence from work because of gender reassignment, as follows:
“16 Gender reassignment discrimination: cases of absence from work
(1) This section has effect for the purposes of the application of Part 5 (work) to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(2) A person (A) discriminates against a transsexual person (B) if, in relation to an absence of B’s that is because of gender reassignment, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if—
(a) B’s absence was because of sickness or injury, or
(b) B’s absence was for some other reason and it is not reasonable for B to be treated less favourably.
(3) A person’s absence is because of gender reassignment if it is because the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone the process (or part of the process) mentioned in section 7(1).”
Page 42
