Introduction

Case C-38/24 (Bervidi), G. L. v. AB SpA. was decided on 11 September 2025 by the first chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), highlighting significant intersections between social policy and legal obligations. The Court examined Articles 2, 5, and 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), alongside Articles 21, 24, and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Directive 2000/78/EC, to address issues of indirect discrimination. G.L., the employee in question, does not have a disability herself but is seeking reasonable accommodation at work to care for her son with a disability.

The interpretation of Article 2(1) and (2)(b) within Directive 2000/78 is particularly relevant, as it pertains to differing treatment of employees with caregiving responsibilities. The Court's ruling will clarify the legal responsibilities of employers in ensuring that their policies do not inadvertently discriminate against employees based on their caregiving status. Throughout the proceedings, various parties contributed observations, including legal representatives for G.L. and AB SpA, as well as government agents from Italy and Greece, and representatives from the European Commission.

This judgment is set against the backdrop of the legal context established by the Directive and international obligations under the Convention, potentially reshaping future interpretations of non-discrimination laws in employment across the EU. The decision marks a pivotal moment in confirming the rights of caregivers within the legal frameworks that protect against discrimination on grounds of disability, emphasizing the need for accommodation (Art. 2 of CRPD: Necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.) in workplace settings. The main question on the court’s agenda was whether the anti-discrimination protections provided by Directive 2000/76/EC, as considered in the context of the Charter and CRPD, apply to parents and other caregivers of disabled children in addition to people with disabilities.

Background of the case

The applicant G.L. was employed as a station operator at AB SpA, responsible for supervising the activities of a metro station. Given her child’s severe disability and the need for afternoon care, she repeatedly requested a fixed morning schedule. In 2019 G.L. filed a case before the Rome Tribunal, requesting compensation, a permanent schedule, and recognition of discrimination. Both the Tribunal and the Rome Court of Appeal rejected her claim, arguing that the temporary arrangements already amounted to adequate accommodation. 

Alongside Legislative Decree No. 216 of 9 July 2003, which transposed Directive 2000/78 into the national legal system by emphasizing on “principle of equal treatment”, specific measures are provided by Italian law to protect employees with family responsibilities. Employees who assist family members with serious disabilities are entitled special rights under Law No. 104 of 5 February 1992, granting them certain leave benefits and flexibility in working arrangements. 

The case then reached to the Italian Supreme Court (Corte suprema di cassazione) and these national provisions formed the basis of the three preliminary questions referred to the CIEU after acknowledging the implication for EU Law:

1. Does the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of disability apply to an employrr who is not disabled but suffers disadvantage because of the need to care for a disabled child?
2. If so, does the employer have a duty to make reasonable accommodation for such an employee?
3. How should the term caregiver be defined? Are parents the only family member who provide long term, unpaid care, or are other family members also included?

The Reasoning of the Court

The Court brought up its previous ruling in Coleman (C-303/06), which recognized that direct discrimination protections extend to parents of disabled children , and the novelty of this case is whether the same principles applies to indirect discrimination. 

Also, the Court held that Article 2 of Directive 2000/78, which forbids any discrimination, must be read broadly, and excluding parents from protection against indirect discrimination would undermine the Directive’s purpose of ensuring equal treatment in employment. In addition, the Court noted that the promotion of equality and the prevention of all forms of discrimination within the EU system are the common goals and structures of Directives 2000/78 and 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000, since both directives are based on the same core idea of equal treatment enshrined in EU law defining similar legal concepts, such as indirect discrimination.

The Court further relied on Article 21 of the Charter and Articles 2 and 5 of the CRPD, pointing out that support for disabled children inevitably necessitates support for their parents. The European Court of Human Rights’ case law was also cited, particularly Guberina v. Croatia, where discrimination against a parent due to a child’s disability was recognized. Therefore, for the first question the Court concluded that the prohibition of indirect discrimination includes situations where a neutral workplace rule disproportionately disadvantages parents of children with disabilities.

Turning to the second question, the Court examined Article 5 of Directive 2000/78. While this provision refers explicitly to persons with disabilities, the Court stated that, in the light of the CRPD (Art. 2 and 7), it must be interpreted as extending to parents where necessary to guarantee equal treatment. Also the preamble of CRPD obliges States to assist families in fulfilling their supportive role. 

As a result, employers must make reasonable accommodations for parents of disabled children as well as for disabled employees. Examples include, reassignment to different posts, fixed shifts, or flexible work hours. The Court emphasized, however, that such measures must not impose a disproportionate burden on employers, taking into account the size and resources of the undertaking and the possibility of external support.

As for the third question, since the Italian Supreme Court had not adequately explained its relevance to the dispute, CJEU ruled it inadmissible. Consequently, the definition of “caregiver” remains a matter for national law, provided that the general principles of EU Law are respected. 

Conclusion

The judgment in Case C-38/24 clarified and expanded the scope of EU equality law in three significant ways:

1. Recognition of indirect discrimination by association
2. Extension of the duty of reasonable accommodation
3. Integration of disability and family rights

In sum, the mentioned Case represents a decisive step toward social justice within the EU legal system, striking a balance between the right to employment and the responsibilities of family care and ensuring that the best interest of children with disabilities are effectively safeguarded.