Thousands of people who care for disabled or elderly relatives will have the right to claim against their private-sector employers who refuse them flexibile working after a tribunal ruling.

Sharon Coleman, a legal secretary who was forced to resign because she wanted more time to care for her disabled son, was told she would be able to claim before the English courts that she suffered "discrimination by association".

Ms Coleman worked for Attridge Law in London when she gave birth to her son Oliver, who is deaf and suffers from serious respiratory problems, including apnoeic attacks in which his breathing involuntarily stops.

She went to the European Court of Justice to argue that she had received less favourable treatment because of her son's condition while others were allowed time off to care for their non-disabled children.

The European Court found in July that Coleman's case amounted to discrimination by association, paving the way for claims by carers who say they are discriminated against because of their role in caring for another person.

The tribunal's ruling yesterday, which follows on from the European decision, has clarified the law in England and Wales.

It means that private sectors workers who also have caring responsibilities now have the same level of protection as public sector workers who were able to rely on the ECJ ruling immediately.

As a result of the ruling, an estimated 2.5 million people in Britain who maintain jobs as well as caring for sick or disabled family members will be entitled to the same treatment as other staff.

"Employers will have to think more carefully about the way they respond to requests for flexible working from carers," said Lucy McLynn, the lawyer who represented Coleman.

"It has taken someone with Sharon's determination to take the case to Luxembourg to establish something the government should have done five years ago."

The ruling by Judge Mary Stacey means that the European Court decision can be implemented without a need for further legislation.

The European Court of Justice decided in July of this year that the EU’s anti-discrimination laws (the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive) that protect disabled people in the workplace also cover their carers as well.

Public sector workers were able to rely on this decision immediately but the position of private sector workers was less clear cut.

There was uncertainty as to whether the UK’s own domestic anti-disability discrimination laws could accommodate the ECJs interpretation of the framework. Judge Stacey decided that UK law could be read to comply with the ECJ’s decision.

Ed Williams, an employment and discrimination specialist from Cloisters Chambers said: “Whilst tribunal judgments are not binding like those of the Higher Courts, this is clearly important for employees who have caring responsibilities and who work in the private sector.

“This is the first judgement to look at whether UK law as it stands can implement the ECJs landmark decision about the rights of those discriminated against because of their association with a protected group.

“The decision will be a relief for those workers in the private sector who feel they are being discriminated against because of their association with a disabled person, for example, carers. They can now take their grievance to their employer with the knowledge that they have some kind of legal back up.

“Private employers should check that their policies and procedures are adequate in the light of this decision. Particular attention should be given to ensuring that equal opportunity, anti-harassment, anti-discrimination and absence policies comply, and that they have a clear understanding of who may be affected by this change in the law

“Employers should also consider how their flexible working policies will be implemented. Parents of young and disabled children and carers of adults already have a right to request flexible working, but this ruling now gives a carers' challenge against an employers' decision far more teeth.”

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• City law firms prepare for painful year ahead
• Welcome to 2009: the year of the regulator
• Thacher Proffitt is latest US legal casualty