Hertz Rent a Car has been directed to pay €10,000 in compensation to a blind woman after it applied a €150 valet “damage” fee, claiming a rental vehicle was excessively dirty due to dog hair from her guide dog, Django, reports Breaking News.
At the Workplace Relations Commission, adjudicator Gaye Cunningham ordered Ryan’s Investments Unlimited Company, trading as Hertz Rent a Car, to pay the €10,000 award for the impact of discrimination experienced by Kim Murphy under the Equal Status Act, reports Breaking News.
As part of the ruling, Ms Cunningham also instructed the Irish operation of Hertz Rent a Car to issue an apology to Ms Murphy for the prohibited conduct and to revise its rental car policies to properly accommodate people with disabilities, including blind customers who need to travel with a guide dog.
Ms Murphy argued that she was treated less favourably on the grounds of disability by Hertz Rent a Car when the company applied a €150 valet charge linked to her guide dog being in the vehicle.
Ms Cunningham determined that Hertz had discriminated against Ms Murphy by imposing the €150 rectification fee, which she described as an apparently neutral measure that nonetheless placed Ms Murphy at a particular disadvantage compared with others, reports Breaking News.
Ms Cunningham also found that Hertz discriminated against Ms Murphy by failing to provide reasonable accommodation to meet her needs, noting that such accommodation would have involved only a minimal cost.
On April 3rd, 2024, Ms Murphy’s husband, Anthony Murphy, hired a car from Hertz’s Dublin branch for five days on behalf of himself and his wife, reports Breaking News.
In her testimony, Ms Murphy explained that her guide dog, Django, is a Labrador and Retriever cross who had been assisting her for eight years.
She said Django was trained by Irish Guide Dogs and that when travelling by car he would sit in the passenger footwell, as he did during the rental in question, reports Breaking News.
Ms Murphy told the WRC that it was a wet day when her husband returned the vehicle and that the staff member receiving it commented that there was ‘superficial soiling’ inside the car.
However, Ms Murphy said she did not believe the €150 valet fee was justified and raised a query about the charge in April 2024, reports Breaking News.
She also said that €150 was a substantial sum for her, as her only income is a disability pension.
Mr Murphy later sought a refund from Hertz’s Dublin Airport branch and was told that “the vehicle was required to be sent for extensive cleaning and subsequently was removed from the fleet whilst this was performed”, reports Breaking News.
The email stated: “Please be assured that we understand your wife’s needs for the dog to be in the vehicle and had the vehicle been returned to us in a satisfactory condition, no additional charge would have been levied… In this instance, however, we believe that the condition that the vehicle was returned to us justifies the charge applied”, reports Breaking News.
In responding to Ms Murphy’s complaint under the Equal Status Act, Hertz said that inspection of the vehicle showed it was excessively dirty with dog hair, that the floor mats were wet and that there was a strong dog odour.
Hertz also said it was only at the end of the exchange that staff were informed a guide or service dog had been present in the vehicle during the rental period, reports Breaking News.
The company stated that “it was not charged simply because the claimant had a guide dog in the vehicle, but due to the condition the car was returned in which would not be rented again until professionally cleaned”, reports Breaking News.
At a WRC hearing held at the Tower Hotel in Waterford, a Hertz representative identified as Mr B said he accepted the car back from Mr Murphy and that his role was to check for damage or other issues.
He said that in this case the interior of the vehicle was soiled and there was an odour caused by the dog being in the car, reports Breaking News.
Hertz maintained that the rectification charge is applied across the board to any customer where the vehicle’s condition warrants it and that the policy is not intended to act as a barrier to accessibility.
Tell us your thoughts in the Facebook post and share this with your friends.
