In Case C-38/24, the Court was asked 2 preliminary questions on which the Advocate General gave his opinion. He took the view that (i) a worker may bring an action for indirect discrimination on the grounds that his child’s disability constitutes a disadvantage in the workplace and (ii) that (i) the measures of appropriate accommodation which the employer must implement also include measures to adjust the working hours and modify the tasks of the worker whose child suffers from a disability in order to enable him to provide the necessary assistance and care to the child.
Thus, if the Court adopts the Advocate General’s opinion, the principle of the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of disability in the workplace will extend its applicability to cases where the disabled person is not the worker but the child to whom he has to provide care, having regard to his state of health.
