Discrimination claim filed after passenger and Seeing Eye Dog refused Uber rides at Melbourne Airport

14 November 2024

In the claim lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), it is alleged Uber’s conduct was illegal as companies are prohibited by law from refusing access to a service because a person is in the company of a Seeing Eye Dog. 

Maurice Blackburn has filed the VCAT claim on behalf of Melbourne resident Peter Frank, who is legally blind and relies on his Seeing Eye Dog Anya to help him with many activities, including travel.

In February 2023, Mr Frank was travelling with Anya when he arrived by plane from Newcastle at Melbourne Airport. He proceeded to the Uber rank outside Terminal 2 where he booked an Uber via the app.

When he tried to board an Uber at the rank, the first driver refused to take Mr Frank and Anya, and told Mr Frank he should have ordered an Uber Pet service at an additional cost.

An airport Uber attendant directed Mr Frank to a second Uber car, but the second driver also refused to accept Mr Frank and Anya and drove off.

Another waiting passenger boarded an Uber while Mr Frank tried unsuccessfully to get help from an airport Uber attendant before he was finally accepted by a third Uber driver.

Mr Frank says the experience left him frustrated and humiliated, and he thinks there needs to be better training for rideshare service providers to ensure people like him are not discriminated against.

In the VCAT complaint, Mr Frank is seeking an order that Uber and Melbourne Airport stop discriminating against passengers travelling with Seeing Eye Dogs.

The application also seeks a public apology and compensation.

Quotes attributable to Peter Frank:

“It was upsetting and humiliating to be standing at the airport Uber rank in front of other passengers with Anya and not be allowed to board these Uber cars.

“Anya is not a pet – she is a trained and certified Seeing Eye Dog. I travel regularly with Anya, including on domestic flights and in taxis.

“People who travel with assistance dogs should be able to confidently book an Uber at Melbourne Airport and be guaranteed a ride, instead of worrying about whether they will be accepted.

“These incidents have left a lasting impact on me. I am reticent to take Anya out on occasions out of concern that we will be rejected by drivers.

“I know other people with Seeing Eye Dogs have been refused rideshare services. When it happened to me, I thought ‘enough is enough’. It is time for this behaviour to stop.

“I’m taking this action because I want to ensure that no one else is exposed to the kind of discrimination and humiliation I experienced at the airport Uber rank that day.”

Quotes attributable to Karl Shami, associate, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

“It’s unlawful for Australian companies to discriminate against a customer because of a disability.

“Again and again, we hear about instances where a person with a disability, like Mr Frank, is refused access to transport services.

“This is a systemic issue. Rideshare service providers are rarely held accountable for their actions.

“It is unacceptable that people like our client are unable to do something as simple as take an Uber home after travel because service providers are not aware of their legal obligations to people with a disability.

“We also say Melbourne Airport discriminated against Mr Frank by failing to ensure accessible airport services.

“The gig economy is not exempt from Australian discrimination law. Companies like Uber need to take responsibility for their business models and accept that service models and standards need improvement.”

Media enquires:
Chee Chee Leung, 0412 560 584 or cleung@mauriceblackburn.com.au