Hertz ordered to pay €10,000 to blind woman over guide dog car hire charge

The company completed an 'incident report form' after the vehicle was returned to Hertz at Dublin Airport. File photo

Car hire firm Hertz has been ordered to pay €10,000 in compensation to a blind woman after imposing a €150 valet charge on her and her husband over claims that dog hair and odour were left in the vehicle.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that Hertz Rent-a-Car breached the Equal Status Act 2000 by discriminating against a customer, Kim Murphy, on the grounds of her disability.

The WRC also ordered Hertz to change its policies and procedures for renting cars to people with disabilities, including blind people.

Ms Murphy, who is registered as blind and uses a guide dog, complained that Hertz failed to provide reasonable accommodation and denied that its treatment of her constituted wrongdoing or discrimination.

She accepted that dog hair remained in the car but rejected Hertz’s claim that there was a dog odour, saying the floor mats were wet.

A Hertz official noted on the return of the vehicle that there was “superficial soiling” inside the car.

Ms Murphy’s husband, Anthony Murphy, rented the vehicle from Hertz on April 3, 2024, for five days.

The WRC heard that Hertz had not been notified in advance that the guide dog, which sat primarily on a towel in the passenger-seat footwell, would be in the vehicle.

The company completed an “incident report form” after the vehicle was returned to Hertz at Dublin Airport, including a €150 valet charge for “damage”.

When Ms Murphy complained and sought a refund, Hertz told her it could not discuss the matter due to data protection concerns, as she was not the main driver who had hired the vehicle.

In a separate letter, Hertz informed her husband that a cleaning fee could apply where a vehicle required additional cleaning beyond standard preparation procedures for the next rental.

The company claimed the car required extensive cleaning.

It said it understood that Ms Murphy needed to travel with her guide dog but claimed no additional charge would have applied had the vehicle been returned in a satisfactory condition.

Hertz claimed the €150 valet charge was justified because the car was “excessively dirty” with dog hair, wet floor mats and a “strong dog odour” that proved difficult to eradicate.

The company said it did not impose the charge simply because Ms Murphy had a guide dog in the vehicle.

Lawyers for Hertz claimed Ms Murphy failed to establish facts from which it could properly be inferred that the alleged discrimination related to her disability.

However, WRC adjudication officer Gaye Cunningham ruled that the “apparently neutral provision” of imposing a soilage charge placed Ms Murphy at a particular disadvantage compared with people without a disability who do not require a guide dog.

Ms Cunningham said Hertz’s decision to stand by the charge was not reasonable and demonstrated a failure to do all that was reasonable to provide a person with a disability with reasonable accommodation.

The WRC found that Hertz discriminated against Ms Murphy by imposing the charge and by failing to provide reasonable accommodation, such as applying a nominal fee for any soiling.

Ms Cunningham ordered the car hire firm to pay Ms Murphy €10,000 in compensation — a sum she said was designed to be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”.

She also directed Hertz to apologise to Ms Murphy and update its rental policies to make specific provision for people with disabilities, including blind people who need to travel with a guide dog.