The Bervidi case
A critical analysis and reflections on the future of work-life balance protection
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22012147 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Milena Da Silva Rouxinol (Universidade Católica Portuguesa, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Pages | 1-28 |
| Publication date | 2026-07-05 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Lex Social Revista de Derechos Sociales (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2174-6419 • E-ISSN: 2174-6419 |
| Publisher | Universidad Pablo de Olavide (PUBLISHER • ES) |
| DOI | 10.46661/lexsocial.13799 |
| OpenAlex | W7167530837 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 7 |
This paper focuses on the Bervidi judgment of the Court of Justice (Case C-38/24, 11 September 2025), which addresses discrimination on the grounds of disability, prohibited by Council Directive 2000/78/EC. According to this judicial ruling, it can be concluded that, where the caregiver of a person with a disability is concerned, the failure to provide reconciliation measures in their favour constitutes discrimination based on that very ground, which is qualified as indirect discrimination by association. One of the questions immediately raised by the judgment is how the employer’s conduct would be characterized in a hypothetical scenario where the care recipient does not possess any disability. In such an event, the failure to implement measures facilitating the reconciliation of work and family life would trigger the application of Directive 2019/1158. In the light of the latter, could this give rise to a claim of discrimination? If so, on the basis of which protected ground? Consequently, taking the Bervidi ruling as its analytical departure point, this paper reflects upon the dichotomy established between caregivers of persons with disabilities and those caring for individuals without such conditions. In doing so, it revisits the long-standing ambiguities surrounding Directive 2019/1158, ultimately proposing potential avenues to overcome them
Directive · Economic Justice · Preliminary ruling · Corporate Governance and Law · Discrimination and Equality Law · European Law and Migration
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |