Found this on the web and posted this as this is seriously disgusting and appalling behaviour by Virgin Australia.
Three Federal Court judges have condemned Virgin Australia’s treatment of a severely disabled man who needed to fly with a guide dog, rejecting the airline’s claim the animal would imperil the lives of passengers and crew. The judges ruled unanimously that the Richard Branson airline’s steadfast refusal to allow David Mulligan to fly interstate with his assistance dog, Willow, was discriminatory.
Mr Mulligan — who has cerebral palsy, is hearing and sight impaired and has severe mobility restrictions — had pleaded with the airline for two years to allow him to travel in the cabin with Willow to visit elderly and dying relatives.
Despite providing his national identification card from Blind Citizens Australia, permits from the NSW and Queensland governments allowing him and Willow to travel on public transport, doctors’ letters setting out his “six or seven” severe disabilities and a training letter from an accredited dog training centre, Virgin repeatedly refused to allow Mr Mulligan to fly with his dog.
A spokeswoman for Virgin Australia said the airline would not appeal against the decision to the High Court, describing the dispute as a “misunderstanding”.
“We sincerely apologised to Mr Mulligan for this misunderstanding in this instance,” the spokeswoman said.
But the judges also found that Virgin had repeatedly misrepresented the Australian guidelines for the use of assistance dogs on planes in its explanations to Mr Mulligan on why Willow could not fly.
“This statement of Virgin Australia’s position and policies relating to Mr Mulligan’s circumstances contains several fundamental errors and misconceptions,” they found.
“Although the airline is entitled to request evidence that Willow is an assistance animal and that she is trained to meet standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an animal in a public place, that training need not be by an accredited organisation.’’
The judges were critical of Virgin’s mishandling of the dispute as far back as 2010, noting that the airline initially rejected Mr Mulligan’s request because they said that he was not vision impaired and therefore was not entitled to have an assistance dog in the cabin, despite emails clearly setting out Mr Mulligan’s vision issues.
“It appears that at this time (no) representative(s) of Virgin Australia turned their mind to Mr Mulligan’s legal entitlements to fly with Virgin Australia with Willow accompanying him in the cabin in circumstances where he claimed, at least implicitly, that he had a vision impairment and needed his dog to accompany him,” the judges said.
Virgin denied to the court that it had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Mulligan and said that allowing Willow on board would subject it to “unjustified hardship” and compromise the safety of passengers and crew.
Mr Mulligan was awarded $10,000 compensation.
Sourced from
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/man-gets-10k-after-virgin-refuses-to-let-him-travel-with-helper-dog/story-e6frg95x-1227521942818
Mr Mulligan — who has cerebral palsy, is hearing and sight impaired and has severe mobility restrictions — had pleaded with the airline for two years to allow him to travel in the cabin with Willow to visit elderly and dying relatives.
Despite providing his national identification card from Blind Citizens Australia, permits from the NSW and Queensland governments allowing him and Willow to travel on public transport, doctors’ letters setting out his “six or seven” severe disabilities and a training letter from an accredited dog training centre, Virgin repeatedly refused to allow Mr Mulligan to fly with his dog.
A spokeswoman for Virgin Australia said the airline would not appeal against the decision to the High Court, describing the dispute as a “misunderstanding”.
“We sincerely apologised to Mr Mulligan for this misunderstanding in this instance,” the spokeswoman said.
But the judges also found that Virgin had repeatedly misrepresented the Australian guidelines for the use of assistance dogs on planes in its explanations to Mr Mulligan on why Willow could not fly.
“This statement of Virgin Australia’s position and policies relating to Mr Mulligan’s circumstances contains several fundamental errors and misconceptions,” they found.
“Although the airline is entitled to request evidence that Willow is an assistance animal and that she is trained to meet standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an animal in a public place, that training need not be by an accredited organisation.’’
The judges were critical of Virgin’s mishandling of the dispute as far back as 2010, noting that the airline initially rejected Mr Mulligan’s request because they said that he was not vision impaired and therefore was not entitled to have an assistance dog in the cabin, despite emails clearly setting out Mr Mulligan’s vision issues.
“It appears that at this time (no) representative(s) of Virgin Australia turned their mind to Mr Mulligan’s legal entitlements to fly with Virgin Australia with Willow accompanying him in the cabin in circumstances where he claimed, at least implicitly, that he had a vision impairment and needed his dog to accompany him,” the judges said.
Virgin denied to the court that it had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Mulligan and said that allowing Willow on board would subject it to “unjustified hardship” and compromise the safety of passengers and crew.
Mr Mulligan was awarded $10,000 compensation.
Sourced from
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/man-gets-10k-after-virgin-refuses-to-let-him-travel-with-helper-dog/story-e6frg95x-1227521942818
No comments:
Post a Comment