Once again a well meaning rule will cause a predictable bad reaction. Putting the burden of social care on companies instead of government and communities will reduce competitiveness and drive up unemployment. Unemployment is a bigger social scourge that we bring on at our collective peril.

John, York,

All this ruling will do is encourage employers to find other "reasons" not to hire those parents who have to care for disabled children.

Ian, Washington, D.C., USA

This is clearly common sense, the ambit of discriminatory practices still conducted by employers is at least lessened by the decision but more importantly enables flexible hours to be examined on a case by case basis, rather than carte blanche -employees are not machines after all.

Stephen Manick, Trinidad,

Who is going to pay all the green and social welfare taxes when nobody is working anymore? It happened in New Zealand - one taxpayer for every person on welfare. The taxpayers won in the end, BTW

Christopher H, Canberra, Australia

One assumes that this ruling applies equally to both men and women in a similar position?. Or will it be interpreted under the 'Harman rules', where women are to be given unequal rights over men in the workplace.

pete, manchester, uk

It's the usual story when someone takes time off for family commitments that their work is spread out, without extra pay, amongst their colleagues. So it is these colleagues, not the employers, who meet the cost. Small businesses however simply cannot cope and just go under.

Paul, Coventry,

I'm a mother of a disabled child. I don't 'fleece' my employer or expect others to do work in my absence - I make sure I do my hours. I have a right to earn my own money as do single, childless, 'carefree' people. Carers can't win - if we stay at home we get accused of 'sponging' off the government

Laura, Hampshire, UK

Carers cannot win,.If we are at home caring 24/7, then we are are sponging off the state, but if we try to work outside the home, and are still coming home to care , not for time off, then we are still criticised.

jane, Pembroke, Britain

To all of you denigrating women' s duty to their children or disabled relatives, I hope you'll never get any disease that will necessitate permanent or part-time care. As for people "chosing" to have children as you say, children are the future and they'll pay taxes to pay for your retirement!!!!

Steph, Brussels, Belgium

I work at a consulting firm -- the fact is that no one wants people with "special rights" on their team because when there is a crisis or when a project absolutely has to be completed and requires extra effort or hours, they are not available. It only means someone else has to do that work.

Carson, Leatherhead,

I have run companies, large and small, all over the world,for over 35 years. When employee of one of the companies under my management ran into difficulties, I always sat down with him/her and arranged a working time-table that would take care of the problem.
Hans Bryers, NY City

Hans Bryers, New York City, USA

Rosalyn

I do not receive overtime for extra hours neither so I suggest you keep your own opinions to yourself. I did not choose to have children, why should my own time be taken up because others do!

A Thorn, London,

Hmmmm, yes caring for relatives is a very noble thing and people who do so should be admired. BUT, should employers be forced to foot the bill? Not everyone works for super-rich law firms; many small employers are struggling by and simply cannot afford to accommodate the needs and wants of staff.

Hibbo, Dundee,

Welcome to your average males working life Kate ...

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

A Thorn - an eloquent insight into why you are single, & very shortsighted. Will your parents & siblings, & any future wife & kids never need care? No? Sure? Then diddums. As a single, childless, straight male myself I am glad for this as it may help my family one day. Plus, it's common sense.

Jake, London, UK

Wheres the discrimination law to protect businesses from spurious claims of discrimination by their employees.

whats next, will disabled people sue the army for discrimination if they arent allowed in the SAS? Will people with an IQ to low for mensa sue because they arent allowed in?
crazy

will, grimsby, uk

Unemployment of women of child -bearing age will skyrocket.
The law of unintended consequences will exact a harsh financial penalty on them.
Check out the labour force in five years and the number of these women employed will shrink.
Then the discrimination lawsuits will fly. Enjoy the mess!

wilfred knight, orange county, usa

Good news on the ruling! Without rulings like this only 'single, childless, straight' men with no other life responsibilities would be able to work and what dull and narrow minded workplaces that would create.

S Kelly, London,

No one will be working extra hours for free, Kate. That would be illegal. How self-centred that you believe your life is harder than that of the "fine and dandy" life of a carer. Grow up! Who else do you suggest looks after these disabled children?

Mary, Bath,

A Thorn has rather missed the point. The solution would actually be to not employ anyone who has or who may have children, or who has parents or other elderly relatives, in case they need to work flexibly. Better also to not employ people who do dangerous sports, drive too fast etc etc..

Liz , London,

Nice to see how the first two people responded so selfishly!
It's a pity that if ever either of you need a reasonable and fair response at work; to look after a dying relative for example, Ms Coleman "and her ilk" will have already gone through hell and high water on your behalf!

Chris, London, UK

This is ridiculous - small businesses cannot cope with these constraints, and I agree with AThorn, the co workers will get fed up having to work on behalf of the same few that take a lot of sick days off with the kids etc, and will also occassionally just want a day off and blame it on Johnny.

Chris, Shrewsbury,

What a loony bunch of employers we have in this country. No wonder nobody wants to work for them. All they want is someone to bully and who will work for free.

Employers. You reap what you sow.

David Kinsley, Dertby, UK

This ruling has just given private sector employers a good reason not to recruit people with disabled dependants. Not all jobs are suited to flexible working.

Angela, London,

It's the abuse of flexi-hours that is the problem. Is this woman's son long-term disabled? If he is not going to get better then is it fair to expect employers and other employees to cover the constant absence? Surely the fairest way is for them to agree a new contract that allows for her situation.

Emma, Southampton, UK

The narrow-minded reactions of people such as Kate Corwyn from Bristol and A Thorn from London who are worrying about their own workloads show why legislation is necessary to create a better culture of social responsibility. Carers work far longer hours than they do for no extra pay!

Rosalyn Ellis, Surbiton, UK

What a heartless bunch of people workers can be. Think how much better it will be when we're able to care for sick, elderly relatives whose paltry pensions mean they live alone with no support or assistance. It's going to affect more and more people and this case could well be the first of many.

Mark Thomas, Biddulph, UK

It's nuts. People who need flexible working should work for a company that can cater for it more easily. It makes no sense to fleece innocent employers on the way out of the door, or to force them to work in inefficient ways. Mind you, she was in a law firm: live by the sword, die by the sword.

Chris, London,

Ultimately it is the fight against big money. People complaining that they have to work more hours for nothing should question that. Business makes billions in profits and trillions in pre tax expenses which are essentially profits. They should share it. Enough of big fat capitalists exploiting!

John Morgan, Old Stratford, United Kingdom

this is great news it had taken pas over a year before i was allowed to take time off to look after my mam who was sick - and it came into force after i left my work place - there had been no support or compassion to what i was doing effectively working 7 days a week with no support or help

tommy mordecai, crewe, cheshire

Time off to take the kids to school, time off to pick them up. 2 years off on maternity pay, cost of hiring a temp through an agency. Time off work when little timmy is poorly. The resentment in the office from other workers, forced to pick up the slack all the time. Hmm Hire a women anyone ?

Steve, portishead, england

A Thorn, London. What pathetic nonsense.
I sincerely hope you are not called upon to care for a close relative or partner. If this does occur you will be afforded time off as with any other employee (special leave or flexible working) and believe me, you will appreciate this if you come to need it.

Sonny Phillps, Everton, UK

Sadly, Phil is right. These laws will only make it more difficult for carers to get full time jobs. Not all jobs are suited to flexible or part time working.

Angela, London,

Glad I'm on this side of the Atlantic.

Jeff, Atlanta, USA

I am the mother of a disabled adult (aged 20) I have been working part-time for the same company for the last 11 years. As long as i complete 18.5 hours every week no one else has to cover any of my work. We are mostly all Mums in the office and all work well together.

Loraine, Ferndown, Dorset

it is getting more and more risky to be an employer.
My basic approach is - that it is women who generally have more caring responsibilities - children, parents, disabled relatives.

Our business cannot deal with catering to all that - so I just don't recruit women.

Helen, Berks, Uk

and the result of this is employers will avoid employing people who come into these catergories...

phil, brixham,

The trouble with rulings of this kind is that it is fine and dandy for Ms Coleman and her ilk, but her workload has to be picked up by her colleagues who will end up working extra hours for no extra pay.

Kate Corwyn, Bristol,

Simple solution, don't employ existing or prospective parents.
As a single, childless, straight male, am I entitled to any favourable working conditions? Of course not but I am expected to cover for people while they leave early because little Timothy or Tabitha has a poorly tummy.

A Thorn, London,