17 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 17–39
Original Scientific Article UDK [331.5:316.647 .82]:364-47-055.5/ .7-057 .16
DOI: 10.51936/dr.39.103.17-39
Zdenka Šadl
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: 
A NEW FRONTIER OF DISCRIMINATION IN 
EMPLOYMENT AND THE LABOUR MARKET 
ABSTRACT
The article deals with the discrimination of workers who are responsible for car-
ing for elderly family members. Some basic questions emanating from carers’ 
discrimination in the light of workplace norms, organisational culture, policies 
for coordinating care and work, the gendered nature of informal eldercare, and 
anti-discrimination legislation are posed. A review of the literature shows that both 
female and male carers are exposed to discrimination and that the fundamental 
sources of discriminatory behaviour include stereotypes of working carers, their 
taking or requesting of flexible working arrangements and leave to care for a 
family member, a lack of, or inadequate, work–care reconciliation policies, and 
deficiencies in the law.
KEY WORDS: informal family care, working carers, eldercare, discrimination, 
work–care conflict
Neformalna družinska oskrba starejših: 
novo področje diskriminacije pri zaposlovanju 
in na trgu dela
IZVLEČEK
Članek se ukvarja z diskriminacijo zaposlenih z oskrbovalnimi obveznostmi do 
starejših družinskih članov. Zastavlja nekatera temeljna vprašanja diskriminacije 
oskrbovalcev v povezavi z normami delovnega mesta, organizacijsko kulturo, 
politikami usklajevanja oskrbe in dela, spolno označenostjo družinske neformalne 

18 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
oskrbe starejših in protidiskriminacijsko zakonodajo. Pregled literature kaže, 
da so diskriminaciji izpostavljene tako ženske kot moški in da so med temeljnimi 
viri diskriminatornega ravnanja stereotipi o zaposlenih oskrbovalcih, uporaba 
in prošnja po prožnih ureditvah dela in dopustu za namen oskrbovanja družin-
skega člana, pomanjkanje ali neustrezne politike usklajevanja dela in oskrbe 
ter nezadostni zakoni. 
KLJUČNE BESEDE: družinska neformalna oskrba, zaposleni oskrbovalci, oskr-
bovalci starejših, diskriminacija, konflikt oskrba–delo
1 Introduction 
 Carers’ discrimination or family responsibility discrimination (hereinafter FRD) 
is a form of employment discrimination that has been recognised only in recent 
decades. A relatively new term FRD was coined by the Center for WorkLife Law 
to cover both, the numerous kinds of discrimination on the basis of family re-
sponsibilities and a growing number of suits against employers for discriminating 
against informal family carers (hereinafter IFCs) (Calvert 2016).
1
 The discrimi-
nation of working carers (and parents) in the labour market is a global social 
problem (see, for example, Von Bergen et al. 2008; Calvert 2016; Calvert and 
Lee 2021; Dai et al. 2018; Dickson 2008; Henle et al. 2020; Masselot 2018; 
Mullins 2014; Mullins et al. 2021; O’Connor et al. 2015; O’Connor and Kmec 
2020; Rivlin 2014). Growing dramatically (Hirsh et al. 2020), it is becoming 
more of an important question than it has ever been before (Mullins et al. 2021). 
The COVID-19 crisis further contributed to the exacerbation of the question of 
carers’ discrimination. There has been a substantial growth in the discrimination 
of parents and carers during the pandemic with many working carers losing their 
jobs (Harwood 2022). The focus here is on the discrimination of informal family 
caregivers for the elderly. 
 The carers’ discrimination issue is particularly important in light of the rapidly 
ageing population in many countries, where more (older) people are living longer 
and require additional informal care and support. Discrimination of informal 
family caregivers for the elderly has also become an increasingly burning and 
unignorable issue due to the challenges brought about by the trend of a de-
creasing number of people economically active in employment, the changing 
demographics of the workforce, as well as a higher incidence of frailty among 
1.  When discussing family or care-based discrimination some authors (for example, Smith 
2012) also use the term family status discrimination, which is akin to FRD in the American 
social context. 

19 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
older people on one side and the shrinking of care services and fiscal constraints 
on the other. Together, this causes an increased need for informal eldercare 
(EC & SPC 2021; Eurocarers 2020). The increasing share of older people and 
decreasing fertility rate indicate that family care for the elderly is becoming a 
more widespread practice among the working population than childcare (Henle 
et al. 2020); today, eldercare is a mainstream issue for the majority of families in 
most countries worldwide, the family’s new childcare, one might say. Furthermore, 
recent decades have seen the process of delayed motherhood, which increases 
the likelihood that women will have to face dual care tasks more often, including 
both, care for small children and their dependent parents (Waddington 201 1). 
 With the aforementioned demographic and other trends, in the future, the shift 
in the focus from the care for the younger generation to the care for the elderly 
will become even more important. A growing number of employed individuals are 
taking on and will, in the future, take on the care of disabled or elderly parents 
(NACAARP 2015; NACAARP 2020; Bainbridge and Townsend 2020; Eurofound 
2015; Williams et al. 2012). Potentially, this will add to the conflict between care 
and paid work, increase the need for flexible working along with the need to see 
how these can be linked to discrimination (Calvert and Lee 2021). It is important to 
recognise that reconciling eldercare with paid work is particularly complex due to 
often greater unpredictability of elderly care compared with childrearing, which 
adds to the tension between work and the eldercare role. Carers who combine 
work and eldercare and those who juggle work with caring for both adults and 
children will be considered here as the group of IFCs with distinctive needs. 
 A critical examination of the carers’ discrimination issue is of pressing impor-
tance as IFCs are becoming more integral to the sustainability of the long-term 
care system, relieving pressure on public expenditure and services. In view of 
the economic value of informal eldercare and of care being the foundation of 
society, it is important to know more about carers’ exposure to discrimination 
and its detrimental effects on their social and economic circumstances. Lacking 
research in the field,
2
 Slovenia needs to fill this gap and look into the IFCs’ po-
tential experiences with discrimination in the labour market.
 Discrimination is not only detrimental for those who care for the elderly, but also 
for wider society, whose care needs can only be met by healthy and financially 
2. In Slovenia the discrimination of informal elder caregivers in the labour market is un-
der-researched. The primary focus of research studies is either on the unfavourable 
treatment of pregnant women and parents of young children or on workers with family 
responsibilities in general, regardless of the type of informal family care they perform 
(for example, Kanjuo et al. 2016; Novak in Nastav 201 1).

20 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
secured carers. This is why society cannot ignore the difficult situation faced 
by many carers balancing care and paid work on one hand and dealing with 
the negative effects of discrimination on the other. The state, policy makers and 
legal bodies together with employers, should ensure that elder caregivers are 
not penalised financially or in any other way, while providing this much needed, 
essential, yet mostly invisible unpaid care work in the community. 
 This article aims to contribute to the existing literature by bringing together 
the research areas of work-care reconciliation and carers’ discrimination and 
by highlighting our understandings of the different factors that influence discrimi-
nation against IFCs in the labour market. The main purpose of this article is to 
provide a critical analysis of policies, workplace culture and legislation that can 
act as facilitators or barriers to establishing work-life balance, and also as fac-
tors that may contribute to or attenuate carers‘ discrimination. Another element 
to take into account is the gender dimension of informal care. Women carry the 
largest burden of informal caring responsibilities in society and often take the 
role of primary carers for family members, while juggling careers. Due to the 
fact that women are disproportionately burdened by care responsibilities and 
as a result suffer the most discrimination in paid work, the literature pays more 
attention to the disadvantages and discrimination faced by female rather than 
male carers (Rivlin 2014; Dai et al. 2018). This brings us to the second goal of 
this article – to examine if and how discriminatory treatment can be encountered 
in the workplace by men caring for elderly family members. The article provides 
an overview of scientific literature and relevant reports, and identifies, on the 
basis of literature review, the nature and characteristics of carers‘ discrimination 
and the adequacy of legislative responses to it. The key research questions are: 
What is the role of public and organisational work-life policies, workplace cul-
ture and legislation in supporting or protecting working carers or making them 
vulnerable to discrimination? What types of carers’ discrimination do men and 
women taking care of their older family members face in the workplace?
 The article consists of the introductory section followed by the conceptualisa-
tion and consequences of discrimination due to family or care responsibilities, 
and the outline of its typical sources, manifestations and consequences. The 
central section deals first with gendered discrimination due to caring responsibili-
ties, the important differences between informal eldercare and childcare, and 
continues by focusing on the position of informal elder caregivers in the context 
of organisational and public policies and laws. Individual sections of the article 
are based on the findings of studies carried out in different countries across the 
world which point to global dimensions of carers’ discrimination. The article is not 
conceived as a comprehensive description of individual factors of discrimination 

21 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
and a comparison between countries, but as an outline of the overlooked or 
under-researched discrimination of informal elder caregivers in the labour market 
compared to parenting-based discrimination. 
2 Conceptualisation and consequences emanating 
 from discrimination of carers in the workplace
 In the legal context discrimination defines unjust unequal treatment (differ-
entiation, marginalisation, exclusion) of a person/group compared to another 
person/group in the same or similar situation due to personal circumstances, 
while sociologically, the starting point of discriminatory views and practices is 
the deviation from the normative model (e.g., of a human being, worker, family, 
sexuality etc.). The starting point for discriminatory treatment of IFCs is the norm 
of the ideal worker,
 
which construct the worker as a subject that is completely 
and continuously committed to paid work, while shifting their family/care re-
sponsibilities to someone in their home. 
 FRD or carers’ discrimination refers to the unfavourable treatment of workers 
(or job seekers) due to pregnancy, childcare, care for a sick or disabled partner 
or elderly parents and relatives, or any combination of these (Martucci and 
Sinatra 2008; Miller et al. 2008; Williams and Bornstein 2008; Williams et al. 
2012; Trzebiatowski and Triana 2020) compared to non-carers, despite their 
equal qualifications and knowledge. Discrimination also involves harassment in 
terms of undesired behaviour and actions, occurring due to care responsibilities 
or perceived family status, which violate a person’s dignity and make them feel 
humiliated. 
 Discrimination stems from two basic sources: stereotypes and the context of 
care-work reconciliation. Discriminatory practices coming from stereotypes or 
discrimination based on status (Hirsh et al. 2020) are shown in the form of em-
ployment rejection, exclusion from work tasks, poor performance evaluation, the 
hindering of promotion, and dismissal. Informal elder caregivers (and parents) 
are less likely to obtain employment than job seekers without care responsibili-
ties, which shows that employers are less likely to be in favour of employing and 
retaining informal carers (Henle et al. 2020: 59–60). Superiors act on the basis 
of the assumption that the (potential) worker will be incapable of performing 
certain tasks, unreliable and less devoted and productive (Von Bergen 2008). 
According to Williams and Bornstein (2008: 1320), the starting point of ste-
reotypes and discrimination is the “workplace/workforce” mismatch. Workers 
are expected to act according to the norms of an “ideal worker” which are the 
criterion of their commitment, competence and performance and, at the same 

22 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
time, as a guiding principle for stigmatising those who do not develop the identity 
of an ideal worker (work part-time, use of flexible working and various leaves). 
The main culprit of flexibility stigma is the ideal worker culture (Chung 2020). 
Workers who balance care and work are exposed to the risk of discrimination 
as they are construed as inauthentic workers (Smith 2012). 
 Conventional workplace norms entrenched in modern workplaces (Chung 
2020) influence the opportunities to earn money, get promoted and trained and 
the (re)production of inequality between women and men and between workers 
with care responsibilities, as well as those without them. When the norms of the 
ideal worker do not match the priorities and identities of workers who combine 
care and work responsibilities, this brings loss to those who find it difficult to fulfil 
the adopted paradigms of the labour market, due to the burdens of informal care 
(Smith 2012). The problematic nature of the norms of the ideal worker has also 
been clearly exposed by the judicial practice which challenges the “workplace/
workforce” mismatch as discriminatory, revengeful and filled with stereotypes 
(Williams and Bornstein 2008).
 Carers providing both childcare and eldercare are more likely to face FRD than 
carers who only provide one type of care (O’Connor et al. 2015). For example, 
primary elder and childcarers applying for a job are less likely be hired and will 
receive a lower starting salary compared to childcarers applying for the same 
job. Employers or hiring managers may expect sandwiched caregiving to be too 
demanding not to influence paid work, causing disruptions, absence and lower 
productivity. This is why sandwiched carers tend to be perceived as those who 
violate the norm of the ideal worker, mainly due to their multiple care demands, 
which results in their being rejected from employment (Henle et al. 2020). 
 The second source of discrimination is based on the reconciliation of paid 
work and care. The so called accommodation-based discrimination (Hirsh et al. 
2020) is related to a worker‘s flexible working requests and is expressed in the 
form of the non-provision of accommodation and a negative attitude to those 
who request it. Employers perceive flexible working requests as a business risk, 
with ideas about ideal workers also influencing the interpretation of requests 
(Hirsh et al. 2020). Those who request for and use flexible working tend to be 
targets of harassment, disciplining and dismissal, with employers pressing the 
workers to de facto renounce the rights exercised in the organisation and those 
they are eligible to, based on legislation. Even if reconciliation policies are well-
designed, the question of their distribution or “organisational justice” remains 
open (Mullins et al. 2021). 
 Workers who use flexible working experience flexibility stigma which is related 
to discrimination (Chung 2020). Flexibility stigma comes from the perceived use 

23 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
of flexible working as the workers‘ personal weaknesses, which deviate from 
the ideal worker image (for example in the withdrawal from traditional working 
hours). Underlying the basis of stigmatisation is the assumption that the users of 
flexible working are less committed and productive compared to other workers. 
Studies show the falsehood of stereotypes about working carers of the elderly 
(Cheng et al. 2020).
 Supervisors with a negative attitude towards workers who use flexible working 
influence the creation of an unsupportive work environment. When employees 
feel unable to discuss what is occurring and ‘hide’ this part of their lives, it can 
increase the strain they experience (Matheson et al. 2020). Workers that dis-
close themselves and wish to use flexible working hesitate if their supervisors or 
colleagues are not in favour of flexible accommodations (Clancy et al. 2020). 
Fear of the negative consequences this may have for their career is one of the 
most important reasons as to why workers do not accept flexible working. Due 
to the stigma and fear of being discriminated against, working informal elder 
caregivers who propose flexible working are even willing to leave their jobs 
(Chung 2020). 
 The flexibility stigma has a series of negative consequences – lower degree 
of commitment to the organisation, lower job satisfaction, increased work-family 
conflict, lower benefit use and higher turnover intentions; with the consequences 
also being felt by other workers (Dickson et al. 2008): those who reported to be 
aware of the flexibility stigma in their departments are less motivated to retain 
their jobs and less satisfied with their work than those who did not report about 
stigma in their department. Mullins et al. (2021) also find that discrimination 
lessens job satisfaction and even leads to the intention of leaving certain employ-
ment sectors. 
 Discrimination also occurs with the introduction of organisational changes 
which have a limiting effect on the worker‘s job role, for example when super-
visors assign less work responsibilities based on the stereotype that they are 
incompetent or due to a “benevolent” belief that they need a break, so it is best 
that tasks are given to others. The study by Mullins et al. (2021) showed that 
family responsibilities hamper career promotion, which can actually present a 
form of FRD.
 Organisations may also cause discrimination by adopting policies in which 
promotion depends on relocation because of work, untimely publication of 
working schedules or planning night shifts and weekend work (Henle et al. 
2020: 60). All those who, due to caring responsibilities, cannot or do not wish 
to adjust to (new) policies and some aspects of organisational context are put 
at a disadvantage. Such policies disproportionately affect women as primary 

24 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
family caregivers. Unfavourable treatment of women related to their caring 
responsibilities can mean indirect gendered discrimination.
 Whether it is in one form or another, carers’ discrimination is disempowering 
and affects carers’ opportunities and their financial well-being. Stereotyped 
ideas and employers’ discriminatory state-of-mind often translates into adverse 
employment decisions and negative evaluations, resulting in the rebuffed oppor-
tunities and the denial of workers’s rights due to their carer status. Discrimination 
against carers thus promotes inequality and exclusion and perpetuates the harm-
ful and noninclusive norms of an ideal worker. As shown in the study by Henle 
et al. (2020), job applicants with care responsibilities towards older relatives 
(and children) were less likely to be hired than non-carers, and carers‘ recom-
mended starting salaries were lower compared to those of applicants without 
caregiving responsibilities. Also, elder caregivers and childcarers are perceived 
as less competent, committed and available than non-carers; regarding avail-
ability for work elder caregivers were evaluated the most negatively followed 
by childcarers, and non-carers were evaluated the most positively (Henle et al. 
2020: 76). Discrimination can also occur at the termination of employment, for 
instance, when performance deficiencies are fabricated to justify the dismissal 
of carers, or when carers can no longer bear to stay, and leave the job (or exit 
the workforce altogether) due to being subjected to unfair treatment in their em-
ployment or problems and conflicts with their employers. Working carers often 
have to accept changes at work (part time work is much more frequent among 
carers than non-carers) or leave the labour market altogether, which can make 
them financially vulnerable (Malm 2022; Smith 2012; Williams et al. 2012). It 
is important to recognise that findings show that keeping one‘s job increases the 
happiness, financial security and social inclusion of working carers (Phillips et 
al. 2020). 
 The abovementioned characteristics of discrimination (refusal to hire ap-
plicants, lower salaries, lower evaluation scores, layoffs) – to which non-carers 
are not exposed – can be emotionally taxing and distressing not only for carers 
but also for their families. Due to the financial insecurity they cause, the hiring 
discrimination and wrongful termination also clearly and particularly reflect in 
the economic/financial and psychological wellbeing of their family members. 
This is why the prohibition of this type of discrimination safeguards not only job 
seekers and employees, but also their families and family members. Furthermore, 
discrimination of IFCs is problematic for wider society, as employers’ reluctance 
to employ them can mean the loss of a competent and experienced workforce. 
The discussion on the discrimination of IFCs should not only be limited to the 
private dynamics of the workplace, but also must demand the state play a more 

25 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
prominent role in ensuring carers and their families receive support. Carers’ 
discrimination is worthy of public policy (and legislation) attention in the quest 
to improve carers employment opportunities and to decrease the discrimination 
and injustice experienced by them. 
 It is also important to follow the aim of gender equality, both for the improve-
ment of the position of women who still predominate in informal eldercare, as 
well as from the aspect of protecting male carers from gendered harassment and 
discrimination when using carers’ leave, or requesting flexible working arrange-
ments. 
3 Gendered carers’ discrimination
 Women carry out the larger part of care for the elderly and other dependent 
family members in Europe (Eurocarers 2018) and the USA (Henle et al. 2020; 
U.S. EEOC 2007). In the EU member states, the disproportionate distribution of 
informal care responsibilities to the detriment of women is a persisting pattern, 
despite the diverse formal systems of long term care in individual countries (EIGE 
2019). The percentage of employed women caring for older people and/or 
people with disabilities is higher compared to men (13% - F, 9 % - M; EIGE 2019). 
Slovenia, where long-term care for elderly parents is underdeveloped, belongs 
to the group of countries with the widest gender gap in the level of participation 
in long-term informal care. Due to having more informal long-term care duties, 
work-life balance is under greater pressure for women than men, which intensi-
fies gender inequalities in employment (EIGE 2019; EIGE 2022). 
 Findings that show victims of unfavourable treatment by employers are mainly 
women (Hirsh et al. 2020; Mullins et al. 2021) are not unexpected consider-
ing that as many as 44 % of Europeans still think that the most important role of 
women is to take care of the home and family and 43 % that the most important 
role of men is to earn money (De Michelli and Capesciotti 2020: 4). Henle et 
al. (2020) find that hiring managers estimate the competence, commitment and 
availability for work of women who informally care for the elderly as less favour-
able than in male informal family carers. 
 Women are more likely to use flexible working during their career (Chung 
2020; Hirsh et al. 2020) and the possibilities offered by the leave policies have 
more prominent effects on employment (higher rates of absence from work) and, 
in turn, also discrimination, for women than men. Women who care for their hus-
bands or elderly parents are reluctant to notify their employers about the scope 
of care because of fear of discrimination (Barrett et al. 2014). They recognise 
the stigma related to the disclosure of eldercare and fear the negative effects 

26 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
the disclosure might have on their careers (Kim et al. 201 1). Despite representing 
the majority of working carers, women are at a disadvantage compared to men 
with regard to employer support (Austin and Heyes 2020). 
 With their increased participation in family care for the elderly, especially life 
partners (Ireson et al. 2018), men also face discrimination. They face the mirror 
stereotype with regard to family care and accommodation-based discrimination. 
Flexible working requests by men are often rejected, while they can be regularly 
approved for their female colleagues. Managers of both genders support flexible 
working more in women than in men and tend to use double standards with regard 
to leave (Yeandle et al. 2003). Men are more vulnerable to stigma regarding 
care work, which leads to the concealment of their caring responsibilities from 
employers and colleagues (Ireson et al. 2018); they can also face more unfa-
vourable consequences relating to their work, when they take leave (Calvert and 
Lee 2021; U.S. EEOC 2007). Men face obstacles when they engage in family 
care more actively, in particular in male-dominated industries, where gendered 
ideas of family care still prevail (Ireson et al. 2018). However, as pointed out 
by Henle et al. (2020), male-dominated jobs may be worse overall for carers; 
they experience more bias in male-dominated professions than in feminised 
professions. This shows that male-dominated workplaces may be unfriendly to 
employees who are balancing work and family (Henle et al. 2020: 78). 
 Men who care for their elderly relatives may be put at a disadvantage com-
pared to fathers. While fatherhood is a sign of manliness and remains compatible 
with the ideal worker norm in the eyes of employers (Hirsh et al. 2020), elder-
care represents a deviation from this norm. There is a trend of an increase in the 
number of cases filed in court due to employment discrimination experienced 
by men as informal elder caregivers (Calvert 2016). 
 Considering the findings (that risk of care responsibility discrimination is also 
experienced by men) leaning exclusively on gender to prove discrimination and 
using affirmative measures to install accommodations for women only can lead 
to a disregard of the discrimination experienced by men. This, in turn, portends 
the reproduction of stereotypes about family care as a female responsibility. The 
EU legal system needs to explicitly address care responsibility discrimination 
and extend legal protection against discrimination to include all working carers 
(Caracciolo Di Torella 2016).

27 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
4 The work-life balance challenges faced 
 by working parents and carers
 With the aging of the population and the ever reducing means of social pro-
tection (long-term care, health care, pensions) – when the burden of long-term 
eldercare is increasingly put on families’ shoulders –, there is also an increase 
in the needs for flexible working, due to eldercare responsibilities. This, likewise, 
opens the door to discrimination against the informal elder caregivers (Calvert 
and Lee 2021). Stereotypes and a limited legal protection of working carers of 
the elderly can lead to the loss of work or discrimination in employment, and 
career progression or promotion (Clancy et al. 2020). Working carers of the 
elderly perceive smaller employment security, and many of them experience 
discrimination (U.S. EEOC 2007; Hirsh et al. 2020: 763). There is a new trend 
of an increasing number of elder caregivers’ discrimination lawsuits, which have 
increased more than in other forms of family care (Calvert 2010; Calvert 2016; 
Williams et al. 2012). Lawsuits filed during the COVID-19 epidemic reveal that 
employers do not believe that workers can successfully perform flexible work 
and care responsibilities (Harwood 2022).
 The challenges of eldercare are different from those of childcare. Compared 
to childcare, eldercare may be filled with crises situations, because informal elder 
caregivers face frequent, cyclical or irregular difficulties with the care recipients 
(Koerin et al 2008). The differences in care responsibilities offered to (healthy) 
children and adults/the elderly and the way they spill over into paid work can 
influence the level of care-work conflict, an individual’s ability to reconcile care 
and work and their potential exposure to discrimination.
 Increasing comorbidity in the elderly does not only indicate that an increas-
ing number of adults are taking on the role of informal elder caregivers, but also 
that they take care of persons who have complex health or support needs. An 
increasing number of carers report about their care-recipients needing care due 
to longstanding health issues. It is this group that frequently perceives they are 
discriminated against compared to those who do not take on the care of people 
with complex health or support needs. Those who offer a more intensive care 
also report more often about discrimination (NACAARP 2020).
 Complex eldercare requires frequent interruption of the work pattern (accom-
paniment to the doctor or therapy; telephone calls during work time; unexpected 
crises and hospitalisation) and longer absences from work (Stewart 2013). This, 
in turn, creates a higher degree of work-care conflict and a more difficult main-
tenance of work-care balance, in particular, when the IFCs live far away from 
the elderly care users. The responsibilities of informal elder caregivers compared 

28 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
to typical childcare interfere with working responsibilities in a more disturbing 
way in the form of absenteeism and presenteeism, and have detrimental effects 
for work and career. Late arrival at work, leaving early from work, taking days 
off, shorter working hours or use of leave open the door to the discrimination of 
elder caregivers (Clancy et al. 2020; Williams et al. 2012). Managers criticise 
and discipline working carers for taking leave or the use of flexible working, while 
they do not treat non-carers in the same way; or, require the former but not the 
latter to make up for the missing hours (Williams et al. 2012). 
 Informal elder caregivers are estimated by the hiring managers as the least 
available for work, followed by parents, while non-carers receive the highest 
evaluation; primary child carers and informal elder caregivers experience the 
highest level of discrimination when decisions are made on employment and 
salaries, compared to non-carers. Also, those taking care of both children and 
parents are more exposed to discrimination than parents who (only) take care 
of their children. Some types of family care can trigger more discrimination than 
others (Henle et al. 2020).
 Differences between parents and informal elder caregivers also occur in terms 
of the availability of official work-care reconciliation policies and superiors‘ (and 
colleagues) standpoints on the right to access flexible working (Bainbridge and 
Townsend 2020). The lower availability of formal support and a negative attitude 
to informal elder caregivers have implications for this group of carers. 
5 Work-care reconciliation policy, legislation 
 and practice: a critical analysis
 Despite the fact that the number of working informal elder caregivers is 
growing, organisations often lag behind in providing accommodated measures 
for specific needs of this group of carers. Most policies and programmes for 
work-family reconciliation remain focused on childcare (Bainbridge and Broady 
2017; Bernard and Phillips 2007; Henle et al. 2020 Kim et al. 201 1; Koerin et 
al. 2008; Spann et al. 2020; Williams et al. 2012). While the vast majority of 
employers consider work-life balance a priority question, a substantially smaller 
share views the support of informal elder caregivers as medium to high priority 
in their employment positions (Ireson et al. 2018). Less than one half of working 
carers declared their employer as “carer friendly” (Austin and Heyes 2020: 17).
 Although organisations are becoming more responsive to the needs of in-
formal elder caregivers, much more needs to be done in the field (Cullen and 
Gareis 2011; Ireson et al. 2018; NACAARP 2020). In Slovenia there is a lack 
of measures for informal elder caregivers at the organisational level on the one 

29 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
hand and, on the other, there are tendencies in support of a more explicit ad-
dressing of their specific needs (see, for example, Humer 201 1a; Humer 201 1b). 
The Family-Friendly Company Certificate, involving family-work reconciliation 
measures (and measures against gendered or family status discrimination), brings 
advantages mainly to parents of young children, with few measures in place for 
informal elder caregivers (Ekvilib inštitut 2015).
 The underdeveloped carer-friendly and non-discriminatory policies can be 
linked to exposure to discrimination: the needs of informal elder caregivers are 
left to the good will of employers. A NACAARP Report (2015) states that only 
a small number of carers report being dismissed from employment due to care 
work, but most generally support the proposal of introducing an additional policy 
on the prohibition of discrimination due to informal care. 
 Formal reconciliation policies guarantee a greater degree of power to take 
action in the case of violations; furthermore, they are linked to the reduction of 
lawsuits, which indicates they can reduce the work-family conflict, while eliminat-
ing grounds for the further reporting of discrimination (Adams et al. 2014). The 
availability of policies as such does not guarantee their actual utilisation; employers 
do not publish or promote benefits and do not encourage workers to use the exist-
ing measures (Calvano 2015). Workers are still reluctant to disclose their carer‘s 
identity or discuss eldercare with their superiors (Cullen and Gareis 201 1; Spann 
et al. 2020). They are afraid of negative responses from their managers and col-
leagues if they exercise the right to use flexible working (NACAARP 2015). Due 
to the pressure from colleagues they do not exercise the existing procedures and 
their rights, and the use of flexible working exposes them to possible stigmatisation. 
 Therefore, formal policies in an organisation are not necessarily a safety net 
against discrimination of informal elder caregivers (Hirsh et al. 2020). The safety 
factors that reduce the risk of discrimination include informal arrangements and 
understanding supervisors and colleagues (Stiell et al. in Cullen and Gareis 201 1: 
17). Supportive supervisors and positively perceived support of the family have a 
more significant influence on the perceived family responsibilities discrimination 
than any benefits arising from reconciliation policies in the organisation (Dickson 
in Mullins 2021). A supportive work environment also encourages the use of exist-
ing policies (Bernard and Phillips 2007: 150). The support and understanding of 
colleagues and line managers proves to be one of the most important conditions 
for a successful reconciliation of work and care (Jungblut in Yeandle 2017: 4; 
Yeandle et al. 2003). However, eldercare as opposed to childcare often receives 
less understanding in the workplace. Managers tend to respond more favourably 
to flexible working for childcare than eldercare (Yeandle et al. 2003: 12). 
Employers’ and recruiters’ judgments can be influenced by internalised ageist 

30 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
beliefs against the elderly and stereotypes of older people. We could speak 
about the phenomenon of discrimination by association – employers treat car-
ers badly because of the age of the person they care for. In addition, eldercare 
may not be disclosed to managers or supervisors due to the relative disrespect 
of the elderly in contemporary Western societies, where children have taken on 
an iconic status, which is why, opposingly, child care is often shared and openly 
discussed with others in the work environment. 
 The scope of employers’ discriminatory treatment of informal elder caregiv-
ers also depends on public policies that put pressure on employers to develop 
carer-friendly policies and act to prevent discrimination. At the EU level, care-
work balancing is not addressed in a way that promotes co-ordinated and 
practical endeavours from the member states; these currently lay more emphasis 
on childcare (Cullen and Gareis 201 1). State policies, designed to facilitate the 
position of informal elder caregivers, vary significantly among EU states (Cullen 
and Gareis 201 1; Rodrigues et al. 2012); eldercare and the condition of working 
informal carers is best arranged in Scandinavian countries (Eurofound 2015). In 
Slovenia, reconciliation policies mainly focus on childcare and much less on car-
ing for other family members (Eurofound 2015: 72; Žakelj and Švab 2009); the 
rights of relatives in the field of eldercare are limited (Hrženjak 2016). A study by 
Filipovič Hrast et al. (2020) shows that, in Slovenia, many carers report of flexible 
and understanding employers; however, this flexibility in reconciliation is not part 
of a specific strategy which would be supported by the government. In the US, 
legal provisions related to the rights of informal eldercarers, at the level of federal 
laws, do not cover this group in more detail and are much less comprehensive as 
in the case of Western European leave policies (some countries offer additional 
protection to informal eldercarers; Calvert and Lee 2021). The United States lags 
far behind Europe in terms of legislation to reconcile work and family and is more 
focused on anti-discrimination law to root out bias IFCs. Being unable to pass the 
relevant legislation for balancing work and family led the United States to focus 
on anti-discrimination law to protect mothers and other family carers.
 New EU-level legislation has brought new development into work-family 
reconciliation and a more efficient protection against the carers’ discrimina-
tion. The EU Directive on work-life balance for parents and carers (2019 /1 158) 
(hereinafter the Directive) brings the opportunity of flexible working for the pur-
pose of eldercare (Article 9) and introduces a new right to carers’ leave (Article 
6) responding to the needs of an ageing society. A less known novelty is that 
it prohibits discrimination in the exercising of or striving to exercise the right to 
apply for flexible working and leave (Article 1 1). It also introduces, for the first 
time, protection against dismissal in this relation (Article 12). The protection it 

31 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
provides to elder caregivers also supports gender equality as women continue 
to be engaged in such caring more often than men (Bell and Waddington 2021). 
 A part of the Directive is also transferred into its legal order by Slovenia 
which, previously, did not have such an arrangement in place in eldercare 
(contrary to the rights related to pregnancy and parenthood). At the legislative 
level, Slovenia only provided sick leave and part-time work for childcare or care 
for the spouse/partner, but not for aged parents. However, family law states 
that caring for parents, when they grow old or fall ill is the obligation of adult 
children; this could be the basis for more eldercare-friendly workplace policies. 
The Directive’s provisions bring the recognition of the existence of eldercare and 
the needs of working informal carers. Although new benefits can be understood 
as victory for elder caregivers, they do not tell the whole story. The downsides 
are the following: a limited duration of carers‘ leave (only 5 working days per 
year) that is not compensated with a payment or benefit (this can diminish the 
efficiency of the leave); limited access to rights (only including the introduction of 
a carer’s right to file a flexible working request, while the final decision is left to 
the employer); and the limited definition of the term “carer” (Article 3) referring to 
care recipients who live in the same household as the working carer, thus exclud-
ing a variety of care relationships. Rights remain mainly focused on parents of 
young children, thus keeping priority over informal elder caregivers. As argued 
by Caracciolo Di Torella (2020), the general right to non-discrimination due to 
caring responsibilities is, thus, not guaranteed. To get to the core of the problem 
faced by informal elder caregivers and to enhance the implementation of the 
Directive‘s goals, Di Torella points out that working carers need to be protected 
not only against discrimination and dismissal for using leave and their rights, but 
also, more broadly, against care responsibilities discrimination in general. 
 Besides rights related to leave, shorter working time and flexible working ar-
rangements, carers can also benefit from the legislation on non-discrimination. 
The carer status is not covered by EU legislation as grounds for discrimination. The 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, laying down the grounds 
for discrimination, does not explicitly address carers’ discrimination, which would 
make the basis for taking action. The lack of specific grounds for discrimination 
is one of the major obstacles for the protection of carers (Caracciolo Di Torella 
2016; Caracciolo Di Torella and Masselot 2020). However, anti-discrimination 
legislation has seen an important development following the ground break-
ing judgement by the European Court in 2008, in the Coleman case
3
. While 
3.  Judgement in the case C-303/06, S. Coleman vs Attridge Law, Steve Law, 17 July 
2008, EU:C:2008:415

32 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
not directly addressing carers’ discrimination, the judgement showed that the 
unfavourable treatment of the plaintiff, the mother of a disabled child, meant 
unlawful discrimination, within the existing European legislation on persons with 
disabilities (in relation to employment). The judgement‘s merit is that working 
informal carers cannot be treated unfavourably on the grounds of their relation 
to, or care for, another individual with protected characteristics (disability). The 
term associative discrimination was adopted by European and national courts. 
In the UK, the 2010 Act on Equality adopted, as a response to the aforemen-
tioned judgement of the European Court of Justice, legislation which protected 
carers of persons with disabilities against discrimination through association 
(DTA) in the labour market. However, it did not specifically define carers as the 
group with „the protected characteristics“, according to the law (Yeandle et al. 
2017). In Slovenia, the legislation provides protection against discrimination 
due to any personal characteristics, both through recognising the worker’s fam-
ily situation or status as well as the prohibition of the DTA (Article 5 ZVarD), as 
provided by EU law. While in Slovenia there is no existing judicial practice that 
would refer to discrimination through association, in 2021, the Advocate for the 
Principle of Equality considered the case of a working mother of a child with a 
disability, in which discrimination through association was likely to be present. In 
the US, federal laws on equality and non-discrimination do not prohibit carers’ 
discrimination as such, but there are circumstances in which discrimination can 
mean unlawful discordant treatment; they also prohibit discrimination against a 
worker‘s association with, or their taking care of, a person with a disability (child, 
spouse or parent) (U.S. EEOC 2007), although, employers are not required by 
law to provide reasonable accommodation. Nonetheless, when fighting against 
the discrimination of carers there are several policy initiatives ranging from the 
protection of carer status at the federal level (similar to gender- or race-based 
discrimination) and the implementation of reasonable accommodation for carers 
of disabled persons, to the introduction of the policy of paid leave (Harwood 
2022: 97).
 Discrimination through association directly refers to discrimination against 
carers of persons with disabilities and could potentially also provide protection 
to carers of the elderly. However, discrimination through association is not nec-
essarily extended to indirect discrimination or to other groups of carers, which 
means its powers are limited when it comes to improving the situation of working 
carers (Caracciolo Di Torella 2016). 

33 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
6 Conclusion 
 A growing share of working informal elder caregivers and the increasing 
care-work conflict, due to the way care responsibilities are spilling into work 
responsibilities, are raising the question about the employment discrimination of 
this group of carers. In revealing and understanding discrimination, and devel-
oping strategies of prevention and protection against it, a wider context needs 
to be considered to include factors influencing the unequal treatment of carers, 
such as: stereotypical ideas about gender roles and ideal worker norm; weak 
public policies of work-care balance; deficient organisational policies of work-
care reconciliation for carers; unsupportive organisational culture; and vague 
antidiscrimination laws for carers, which are not specific enough. Research 
shows that discrimination of informal elder caregivers is present in many socie-
ties and parts of the world. Its scope and manifestations, along with (formal and 
informal) potential for work-care reconciliation, depend on the combined and 
cumulative effects of cultural, organisational, policy and legal factors within in-
dividual countries. As pointed out by Henle et al. (2020) it also depends on the 
caring (eldercare, caring for multiple generations), the job context, and workers’ 
experiences, which may also vary due to different values (individualism versus 
collectivism). Although women’s share in care is greater and certain drawbacks 
in employment, promotion and job retention are more likely for women than for 
men, men often have similar or even worse experiences of discrimination.
 Especially within the EU, an important role has been played by carer-friendly 
policies introduced to explicitly address the participation of carers (who are 
mainly women) with their specific needs, and particularly the elder caregivers, 
in the labour market, and their non-discrimination. Specific progress has been 
noticed recently, with a series of organisations introducing measures to provide 
a more egalitarian arrangement of employment prospects of informal elder car-
egivers. The elimination of gender stereotypes for informal carers and the stigma 
of flexibility are needed in parallel with the establishment of adequate policies. 
It is stereotypes and stigmatisation that are among the most tenacious causes of 
discrimination and the prevention of (officially recognised) equal opportunities 
for women and men, and carers and non-carers, to be exercised in the labour 
market. It is important to guarantee the use of flexible working arrangements and 
care leave without fear of a negative response in the workplace from anybody, 
regardless of their gender and the type of family informal care that they do. 
With organisational culture being crucially important here, the existence of the 
flexibility stigma and its extent needs to be looked into to help us understand, 
how to tackle and how to overcome it. At the state level, the following actions 

34 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
are necessary: exercise of the relevant policies of eldercare and the instillation 
of adequate legislation or (within the EU) to transfer the Directive on work-life 
reconciliation to national legislations (to provide the informal elder caregivers 
the right to flexible working and paid care leave and their non-discrimination). 
Last but not least, countries, such as Slovenia, which lag behind in the field, need 
to put in place a comprehensive regime of care for the elderly, sick or disabled 
relatives or a systemic arrangement of long-term (formal and consequently in-
formal) eldercare. 
References
Adams, Scott., et al. (2014): Caregivers, Firm Policies and Gender Discrimination Claims. 
Review of Economics of the Household, 12 (2): 359‒377 .
Austin, Annie, and Heyes, Jason (2020): Supporting Working Carers: How Employers 
and Employees can benefit. Research Report, CIPD/University of Sheffield.
Barrett, Patrick, et al. (2014): Family Care and Social Capital: Transitions in Informal 
Care. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bainbridge, Hugh Tulloch James, and Broady, Timothy Robert (2017): Caregiving 
Responsibilities for a Child, Spouse or Parent: The Impact of Care Recipient Inde-
pendence on Employee Well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 101: 57‒76. 
Bainbridge, Hugh Tulloch James, and Townsend, Keith (2020): The Effects of offering 
Flexible Work Practices to Employees with unpaid Caregiving Responsibilities for El-
derly or disabled Family Members. Human Resource Management, 59 (5): 483‒495.
Bernard, Miriam, and Phillips, Judith (2007): Working Carers of Older Adults. What 
helps and what hinders in juggling Work and Care? Community, Work and Family, 
10: 139–60.
Burch, Katrina A., et al. (2019): Understanding what Eldercare means for Employees 
and Organizations: A Review and Recommendations for Future Research. Work, 
Aging and Retirement, 5 (1): 44–72.
Calvano, Lisa (2015): Eldercare: The New Frontier of Work–Family Balance. The 
Psychologist, 28: 202–205.
Calvert, Cynthia Thomas (2010): Family Responsibilities Discrimination: Litigation 
update 2010. San Francisco, CA: Center for Work Life Law, University of Califor-
nia Hastings College of the Law. Available from: https://media.npr.org/assets/
news/2010/06/07 /report.pdf (Accessed 2. 4. 2022).
Calvert, Cynthia Thomas (2016): Caregivers in the Workplace: Family Responsibilities 
Discrimination Litigation Update 2016. San Francisco, CA: Center for WorkLife Law. 
Available from: https:/ /worklifelaw.org/publications/Caregivers-in-the-Workplace-
-FRD-update-2016.pdf (Accessed 2. 4. 2022).
Calvert, Cynthia, and Lee, Jessica (2021): Caring Locally for Caregivers: How State and 
Local Laws Protect Family Caregivers from Discrimination at Work. Washington, DC: 

35 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
AARP Public Policy Institute. Available from: https:/ /www.aarp.org/content/dam/
aarp/ppi/2021/02/caring-locally-for-caregivers.doi.10.26419-2Fppi.00122.001.
pdf (Accessed 2. 4. 2022). 
Caracciolo Di Torella, Eugenia (2016): Shaping and Re-shaping the Caring Relationship 
in European Law: A Catalogue of Rights for Informal Carers? Child and Family Law 
Quarterly, 28 (3): 261–279.
Caracciolo Di Torella, Eugenia, and Annick Masselot (2020): Caring Responsibilities 
in European Law and Policy: Who Cares? Abingdon: Routledge. 
Caracciolo di Torella, Eugenia (2020): One more Step along the Way: The 2019 Work Life 
Balance Directive. Revue de droit comparé du travail et de la sécurité sociale, 4: 70–81.
Cheng, Zhiming, et al. (2020): A Dynamic Analysis of Informal Elder Caregiving and 
Employee Wellbeing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35: 85–98.
Chung, Heejung (2020): Gender, Flexibility Stigma and the Perceived Negative 
Consequences of Flexible Working in the UK. Social Indicators Research, 151 (2): 
521–545.
Clancy, Rebecca L., et al. (2020): Eldercare and Work Among Informal Caregivers: 
A Multidisciplinary Review and Recommendations for Future Research. Journal of 
Business and Psychology, 35: 9–27 .
O’Connor, Lindsey Trimble, et al. (2015): Giving Care and Perceived Discrimination: The 
Social and Organizational Context of Family Responsibility Discrimination. Research 
in the Sociology of Work (Work and Family in the New Economy), 26: 249–276.
O’Connor, Lindsey Trimble, and Kmec, Julie A. (2020): Is it Discrimination, or Fair and 
Deserved? How Beliefs about Work, Family, and Gender Shape Recognition of 
Family Responsibilities Discrimination. Social Currents, 7 (3): 212–230.
Cullen, Kevin, and Garei, Karsten (2011): Company Initiatives for Workers with Care 
Responsibilities for disabled Children or Adults. Luxembourg: Publications Office of 
the European Union.
Dai, Haijing, et al. (2018): A Study on Family Status Discrimination in the Workplace in 
Hong Kong. Research report. Hong Kong: Equal Opportunities Commission.
De Michelli, Barbara, and Capesciotti, Marta (2020): Working, yet Poor: Gender Policy 
and Indicators Report. Available from: https://workingyetpoor.eu/deliverables/ 
(Accessed 2. 2. 2023).
Dickson, Christine E. (2008): Antecedents and Consequences of perceived Family Re-
sponsibilities Discrimination in the Workplace. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 
11 (1): 113 –14 0 .
EC & SPC (2021): Long-term Care Report: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities in an 
Ageing Society, Vol 1. Available from: https:/ / data.europa.eu/ doi/10.27 67 /183997 
(Accessed 7 . 6. 2022).
Ekvilib inštitut (2015): Analiza učinkov vpeljevanja družini prijaznih politik v organiza-
cijo. Available from: http:/ /www.certifikatdpp.si/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/
Analiza_DPP-anketa_2015_.pdf (Accessed 4. 2. 2022).

36 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
Eurofound (2015): Working and Caring: Reconciliation Measures in Times of Demo-
graphic Change. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
EIGE (2019): Gender Equality Index 2019. Work-life Balance. Available from: https:/ /
www.euromedwomen.foundation/pg/en/resources/view/9163/european-institu-
te-for-gender-equality-index-2019-reports (Accessed 4. 2. 2023).
EIGE (2022): Gender Inequalities in Informal long-term Care, Statistical Brief. 
Eurocarers (2020): About Carers. Available from: https:/ / eurocarers.org/ about-carers/ 
(Accessed 6. 6. 2022). 
Harwood, Alaina (2022): Caregiver Discrimination in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pan-
demic. Hastings Journal of Gender and the Law, 33 (1): 79–102. 
Henle, Christine A., et al. (2020): Eldercare and Childcare: How does Caregiving Re-
sponsibility affect Job Discrimination? Journal of Business and Psychology, 35: 59–83. 
Hirsh, C. Elizabeth, et al. (2020): Caregivers, Gender, and the Law: An Analysis of Family 
Responsibility Discrimination Case Outcomes. Gender & Society, 34 (5): 760–789.
Hrženjak, Majda (2016): Primerjava sistemov oskrbe za otroke in starejše v Sloveniji v 
kontekstu politik defamilizacije in refamilizacije. Teorija in praksa, 53 (6): 1484–150.
Humer, Živa (2011a): Case Study: Awareness raising – Sava, Slovenia. EurWORK. 
Available from: https:/ /www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/case-
-studies/workers-with-care-responsibilities/case-study-awareness-raising-sava-
-slovenia (Accessed 22. 3. 2022).
Humer, Živa (201 1b): Case Study: Awareness raising – Mercator, Slovenia. EurWORK. 
Available from: https:/ /www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/case-
-studies/workers-with-care-responsibilities/case-study-awareness-raising-merca-
tor-slovenia (Accessed 22. 3. 2022).
Filipovič Hrast, Maša, et al. (2020): Sustainable Care in a Familialist Regime: Coping 
with Elderly Care in Slovenia. Sustainability, 12 (20): 1–15. 
Ireson, Rachelle, et al. (2018): Availability of Caregiver‐friendly Workplace Policies 
(CFWP): An International Scoping Review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 
26 (1): e1–e14. DOI: 10.1 1 1 1/hsc.12347 .
Kanjuo, Aleksandra, et al. (2016): Dostopnost trga dela za ženske in moške: končno 
poročilo. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. 
Kim, Jeungkun, et al. (2011): Balancing Eldercare and Employment: The Role of Work 
Interruptions and Supportive Employers. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 32 (3): 
347–369.
Koerin Beverly B., et al. (2008): Eldercare and Employed Caregivers: A Public/Private 
Responsibility?, Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 51 (1–2): 143–161.
Malm, Camilla (2022): Involving Informal Carers in Health and Social Care Research. 
PhD Thesis. Kalmar: Linnaeus University Press.
Masselot, Annick (2018): Family Leave: Enforcement of the Protection against dismissal 
and unfavourable Treatment. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.

37 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
Martucci, William C., and Sinatra, Katherine R. (2008): Caregivers in the Workplace: 
Prohibitions against Family‐Responsibility Discrimination. Employment Relations 
Today, 34 (4): 71–76.
Matheson, Rachel, et al. (2020): Flexible Working is Important, but Employers need 
a Broader Workplace Strategy for Carers. North Sydney: Carers and Employers. 
Available from: https:/ /carersandemployers.org.au/uploads/main/News/Carer-
sEmployers_Briefing1-Remote-Work-Sept-2020.pdf (Accessed 10.4.2023).
Miller, Michele Ballard, et al. (2008): Family Responsibility Discrimination. FDCC 
Quarterly, 59 (1): 19–29.
Mullins, Lauren Bock (2014): Is Family Responsibilities Discrimination the New Sex 
Discrimination? Lessons from School Teachers’ Perceptions. Review of Public Admi-
nistration and Management, 2 (1): 142–146.
Mullins, Lauren Bock, et al. (2021): The Effects of Family Responsibilities Discriminati-
on on Public Employees’ Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions: Can Flexible Work 
Arrangements Help? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41 (2): 384–410.
NACAARP (2015): Caregiving in the U.S. Available from: https:/ /www.aarp.org/ppi/
info-2015/caregiving-in-the-united-states-2015.html (Accessed 15. 2. 2023)
NACAARP (2020): Caregiving in the U.S. Available from: https://www.caregiving.
org/caregiving-in-the-us-2020/ (Accessed 15. 2. 2023). 
Novak, Matjaž, and Nastav, Bojan (201 1): Analiza rezultatov anketiranja med prebi-
valstvom. In P. Dolenc (ur.): Diskriminacija na trgu dela v Sloveniji: 85–98. Koper: 
Fakulteta za management.
Phillips, Dominique, et al. (2020): The Invisible Workforce during the COVID-19 Pan-
demic: Family Carers at the Frontline. HRB Open Research, 3 (24). DOI: https:/ /
doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13059.1.
Rivlin, Lorraine Patricia (2014): Carers‘ Responsibility Discrimination Protections under 
the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) An Evaluation of the First Decade 2001-
201 1. Thesis. Sydney: Faculty of Law, University of Sydney. Available from: https:/ /
ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/14054 (Accessed 8. 12. 2022).
Rodrigues, R. Ricardo, et al. (ed.) (2012): Facts and Figures on Healthy Ageing and 
Long-term Care. Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.
Stewart, Lisa. M. (2013): Family Care Responsibilities and Employment: Exploring the 
Impact of Type of Family Care on Work-Family and Family-Work Conflict. Journal 
of Family Issues, 34 (1): 1 13–138.
Smith, Olivia (2012): How far from a “Right to care”? Reconciling Care Work and Labour 
Market Work in Ireland. Irish Jurist, 47: 143–167 .
Spann, Alice, et al. (2020): Challenges of Combining Work and unpaid Care, and Solu-
tions: A Scoping Review. Health and Social Care in the Community, 28 (3): 699–715.
Trzebiatowski, Tiffany, and Triana, María del Carmen (2020): Family Responsibility 
Discrimination, Power Distance, and Emotional Exhaustion: When and why are there 
Gender Differences in Work–Life Conflict? Journal of Business Ethics, 162: 15–29. 

38 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
Zdenka Šadl
U.S. EEOC (2007): Enforcement Guidance: Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers 
with Caregiving Responsibilities (Notice No. 915.002). Available from: http:/ /www.
eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html (Accessed 8. 4. 2023).
Von Bergen, Alison N., et al. (2008): Family Responsibilities Discrimination: What Emplo-
yment Counselors Need to Know. Journal of Employment Counseling, 45 (3): 1 15–130.
Von Bergen, Clarence W. (2008): “The Times they are a-changin”: Family Responsibi-
lities Discrimination and the EEOC. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 
20 (3): 177–194.
Waddington, Lisa (201 1): Carers, Gender and Employment Discrimination: What Does 
EU Law Offer Europe’s Carers?. In Marie-Ange Moreau (ed.): Before and After the 
Economic Crisis: What Implications for the ‘European Social Model’?: 101–128. 
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Waddington, Lisa, and Bell, Mark (2021): The Right to Request Flexible Working Arrange-
ments under the Work-life Balance Directive–A Comparative Perspective. European 
Labour Law Journal, 12 (4): 508–528.
Williams, Joan C., and Bornstein, Stephanie (2006): Caregivers in the Courtroom: The 
growing Trend of Family Responsibilities Discrimination. University of San Francis-
co Law Review, 41 (2): 171–190. Available from: http:/ /scholarship.law.ufl.edu/
facultypub/498 (Accessed 10. 10. 2021).
Williams, Joan C., and Bornstein, Stephanie (2008): Evolution of „FReD“: Family Respon-
sibilities Discrimination and Developments in the Law of Stereotyping and Implicit 
Bias. Hastings Law Journal, 59 (6): 131 1–1358. 
Williams, Joan C., et al. (2012): Protecting Family Caregivers from Employment Discrimi-
nation Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute. Available from: http:/ /www.aarp.
org/home-family/caregiving/info-08-2012/insight-protecting-family-caregivers-
-from-employment-discrimination-AARP-ppi-health.html (Accessed 10. 10. 2022).
Yeandle, Sue, et al. (2003): Line Managers and Family Friendly Employment. Bristol: 
Policy Press.
Yeandle, Sue, et al. (2017): Work–Care Reconciliation Policy: Legislation in Policy Con-
text in Eight Countries. Report prepared for the German Bundesministerium für Familie, 
Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, Berlin. Available from: http:/ / circle.group.shef.ac.uk/
wpcontent/uploads/2018/1 1/yeandle-WCR-v2.pdf (Accessed 10. 12. 2022). 
Žakelj, Tjaša, and Švab, Alenka (2009): Usklajevanje dela in družine. Socialno delo, 
48 (4): 215–226.
Sources
Advocate of the Principle of Equality, Annual Report for 2021. Available from: https:/ /
zagovornik.si/izdelki-zagovornika/letno-porocilo/ (Accesssed 1. 12. 2022).
Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council from 20 
June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers and Council Directive 
2010/18/EU. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017PC0253 (Accessed 3. 4. 2020).

39 DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE/Social Science Forum, XXXIX (2023), 103: 1 7–39
INFORMAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: ... 
Judgement c-303/06 from 17 July 2008, S. Coleman vs. Attridge Law and 
Steve Law. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SL/
ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A62006CJ0303 (Accessed 5. 5. 2022).
Protection against Discrimination Act. Available from: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7273 (Accessed 2. 12. 2022).
Author's data
izr. prof. Zdenka Šadl
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede
Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
E-mail: zdenka.sadl@fdv.uni-lj.si