After the birth of her child, which needs care, in contrast to other colleagues, Ms Coleman was not allowed to return to her former workplace. Additionally, she was the only employee with a child who was not allowed to have flexible working hours and, as a result, got warning letters for being late. Moreover, her superiors made abusive and insulting comments about both her and her child.

At first, she filed a complaint, which was not successful. Hereinafter, Ms Coleman lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal in London South in 2005. However, the tribunal raised the question as to whether the complaint can be based on the Disability Discrimination Act from 1995 (DDA) and whether the DDA has been interpreted in line with Directive 2000/78/EC. The tribunal held that the claimant cannot base her proceedings on the national law and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

1. In the context of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability, does [Directive 2000/78] only protect from direct discrimination and harassment of persons who are themselves disabled?
2. If the answer to Question (1) above is in the negative, does [Directive 2000/78] protect employees who, though they are not themselves disabled, are treated less favourably or harassed on the ground of their association with a person who is disabled?
3. Where an employer treats an employee less favourably than he treats or would treat other employees, and it is established that the ground for the treatment of the employee is that the employee has a disabled son for whom the employee cares, is that treatment direct discrimination in breach of the principle of equal treatment established by [Directive 2000/78]?
4. Where an employer harasses an employee, and it is established that the ground for the treatment of the employee is that the employee has a disabled son for whom the employee cares, is that harassment a breach of the principle of equal treatment established by [Directive 2000/78]?