The 57-year-old, who uses a guide dog after losing her sight to glaucoma around four years ago, says the driver offered no explanation as to why he didn’t want to take her.
She said: “He pulled up and didn’t open the door for me, but when I opened it he said ‘I’m not having the dog in here,’ when I told him it was against the law not to take me he said ‘it’s my car and I’m not having a dog in here. I don’t even let my wife’s dog in here’.”No doubt she'll have an uphill struggle trying to get this rectified, with a measly fine imposed (should it get that far) and...
Oh!
A spokesperson for Delta said: “Having just been awarded the Macular Society’s Public Transport Provider of the Year 2016 we obviously treat such matters very seriously.
“Refusal to carry an assistance dog without the relevant medical exemption is a criminal offence and completely unacceptable.
“The offending driver has subsequently been removed from our circuit and we apologise unreservedly to our customer.
“Given the extensive levels of professional training provided to each and every Delta driver a failure of this kind is inexcusable.”More of this, please!
I assume the driver was a member of the usual dog-women-freedom-pork-tolerance-etc-hating group?
ReplyDeleteNo name or description for the driver, though. Strange...
ReplyDeleteWe have a situation of two peoples rights being violated. I have no intention of working out which one should be upheld. I can think of ways that this sort of incident can be avoided but I am not going there either. They would be exercises in futility as that would involve arguing about ethics and no amount of logic can untangle that discourse.
ReplyDeleteHowever what this incident demonstrates is that the private sector deals with this problem by considering profit implications and that means it is customer orientated so the employee will nearly always come off second best. In the public sector as we so often observe it is the other way around. Yet so many of us clamour for it to do more not less and even allow it to continue in it's uncaring and unaccountable way.
"I assume the driver was a member of the usual dog-women-freedom-pork-tolerance-etc-hating group?"
ReplyDeleteIf the wife has a dog, I'd have thought it unlikely.
"No name or description for the driver, though. Strange..."
If he's not prosecuted, he won't need to be named.
"...so the employee will nearly always come off second best."
People with a genuine allergy can get an exemption certificate. So the employee's rights are still protected.