A Hertz Rent-a-Car franchisee has been ordered to pay €10,000 in compensation and apologise to a blind woman for charging her husband a €150 cleaning fee over hair shed by her guide dog in a rental vehicle.
The directions were given by the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Equal Status Act 2000 after it upheld a complaint by Kim Murphy against Ryan’s Investments Unlimited Company trading as Hertz Rent-A-Car, alleging discrimination through disability.
At a hearing in Waterford City last autumn, the tribunal was told that Ms Murphy’s husband, Anthony Murphy, rented a car from the respondent at its Dublin Airport branch on April 3rd, 2024, and returned it five days later.
Ms Murphy explained that her guide dog Django, a Labrador retriever cross which had been her service animal for nine years, had sat in the passenger footwell when they travelled in the car.
READ MORE
Upon the vehicle’s return, Mr Murphy was presented with a €150 valet charge for “damage”, it was submitted.
An employee, identified only as Mr B, gave evidence that the inside of the car was “soiled” and that there was “an odour from the dog having been in the car”. When he told Mr Murphy there would be a valet charge for that, the complainant’s husband told him about the guide dog, he said.
Mr Murphy was referred to a claims department, which said there was “no issue with guide dogs”, but that the car was returned “soiled and unacceptable” and had to be taken out of service and valeted.
The company’s position was that the car was “excessively dirty with dog hair”; that the floor mats were wet, and that there was an “extremely strong odour which was difficult to eradicate”.
While it was accepted that there was dog hair present in the car on its return, Ms Murphy’s evidence was that her husband had only been told there was “superficial soiling” on the day he brought back the vehicle. He pointed out he was returning it on a wet day.
The tribunal heard that the franchisee maintained its position on the charge after being put on formal notice by Ms Murphy that she was raising an equality complaint – writing in response: “If the vehicle is returned in an excessively dirty condition, the charge is applied regardless of whomever rents the vehicle.”
Ms Murphy said that as Django had been trained and provided to her by Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind, she had “contractual responsibilities” in regard to his cleanliness. She did not accept the charge was reasonable. As her only income was the blind pension, €150 was “a significant amount” to pay, she said.
Ruling on the equality claim, adjudicator Gaye Cunningham found that the “apparently neutral” policy of the respondent to apply cleaning fees universally put Ms Murphy at a “particular disadvantage” as a guide dog user compared to others.
“The determination of the respondent to stand by their decision to impose a charge was not reasonable and demonstrated their failure to do all that was reasonable to accommodate the needs of the person with a disability,” Ms Cunningham wrote.
“The respondent has discriminated against the complainant by the imposition of the rectification charge,” she added.
She directed the company to pay Ms Murphy €10,000 in compensation for the breach, and ordered it to “offer an apology” to the complainant and update its rental policies to make provision for other customers in a similar position.
Sean Beatty BL appeared for the complainant in the case, while the car hire firm was represented by Eve Bolster BL.
