A vision-impaired woman with an assistance dog was denied service by 10 cab drivers in a row in a single booking. When she pursued the matter through the human rights commission, the booking company offered a $100 gift voucher.
Melbourne woman Debra Simons, 62, took her case to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) but 13Cabs argued they were a booking company that did not directly employ drivers.
Simons, who was born with a vision impairment and got Royce, her first registered guide dog, four years ago, says she had become accustomed to regular rejection by taxi drivers.
It is illegal for taxi, ride-share and public transport services to reject a passenger because they have a guide dog or guide puppy. But Simons says it is so routine she needs to add a buffer of at least half an hour on to every taxi trip.
“I have a core group of a couple of [taxi] drivers, and if they accept my job, then I know I’ll be treated with dignity and professionalism. They’re amazing. They go out of their way to be helpful,” Simons says.
“But if it’s an unfamiliar taxi driver, I know that my jobs will be shuffled around at least between two and four drivers.”
In April last year, she used the 13Cabs app to book a taxi from her home in Melbourne’s northern suburbs to an appointment, noting she had a guide dog. Ten drivers picked up the job before immediately cancelling, she says. The 11th finally accepted it.
Simons, a retired social worker, filed a complaint against 13Cabs with the AHRC, alleging discrimination on the basis of her disability and her assistance animal under the Disability Discrimination Act.
In the following 12 months, Simons reported 34 different drivers who had declined her jobs on 13Cabs to the company, seven on multiple occasions.
This did not represent anywhere near the total number of rejections, she says.
“There’s such a sense of helplessness and anger and humiliation,” Simons says. “And this isn’t just me … I don’t know anybody who has a guide dog who hasn’t experienced this.”
The commission scheduled a mediation conference between 13Cabs and Simons this year, but 13Cabs did not attend.
Simons was seeking initial and ongoing disability education for drivers, a designated contact at the company for her to call when declined service, active efforts by the company to identify customers who appeared to be routinely discriminated against and by which drivers, and financial compensation of $1,800.
The company claimed that while it made “all reasonable steps to combat breaches”, it was not liable for the conduct of the drivers, on the basis that it was a booking service and did not directly employ drivers. It offered Simons a $100 gift voucher.
Simons had the option of terminating the HRC complaint and escalating it to the federal court, but the financial burden of doing so was beyond her means. She felt her only option was to accept an unsatisfactory outcome.
“It was just so demeaning,” Simons says. “The fact they think that as a vision-impaired person, that’s going to make me happy. I accepted it, but what else was I going to do? I had no choice.”
A spokesperson for 13Cabs says: “The company’s chief operating officer, Olivia Barry, has personally reached out to Ms Simons, and they are attempting to discuss the matter on Monday.
“We acknowledge that drivers sometimes do the wrong thing. That is why we have a strict driver code of conduct and a system in place to reprimand those that do the wrong thing.”
A driver involved in the incident taken to the commission has been interviewed and is required to attend mandatory training, the spokesperson says, and the company is in the process of working on projects to improve the service, “with a particular focus on those who rely on our services the most”.
Martin Stewart, national advocacy officer for Blind Citizens Australia, who assisted Simons, decries what he says was a “toothless” justice process through the AHRC.
“The Human Rights Commission are doing what they can, it’s the constraints of the legislation that’s the issue,” Stewart says.
“The police will often turn up and they’ll either give [the vision-impaired person] a link to human rights information, or they’ll say: you’ve got to settle down here, we know you’re feeling passionate about this but it will sort itself out.
“They don’t say to the alleged offender: this doesn’t look good for you, you ought not do this again,” Stewart says.
“You say to yourself, gee, do we really matter? Are we really included? Are we considered a part of this society? … The human impact is immense.”
A spokesperson for the AHRC says the commission’s role is to inquire into and attempt to resolve unlawful discrimination complaints through conciliation.
“Unlike the courts, the commission does not have the power to make findings that unlawful discrimination has occurred, nor can it enforce any outcomes.”
The spokesperson says the commission has recommended the federal government adopt a human rights act and give the commission “stronger regulatory powers to increase compliance with human rights and discrimination laws”.
A spokesperson for Victoria police says it strives to be inclusive of and accessible to people with disability, and is committed to responding appropriately and meeting the needs of people with disability within all parts of the criminal justice system.
“We understand people with disability face considerable barriers at all points in the criminal justice system, including reporting crime to police.”
