The case had nothing to do with web accessibility – an issue often covered by OUT-LAW. But it involved the same legislation that puts an obligation on web site operators to make their sites accessible to disabled internet users; and it provides a salutary lesson to all service providers.
The case concerned Robert Ross who suffers from cerebral palsy and arthritis. The nature of his disability is such that he can only walk short distances without assistance. So when he travelled with Ryanair to and from Perpignan, he asked for the use of a wheelchair to help him between the check-in desk at Stansted airport and its departure gate.
Mr Ross was charged £18 for this wheelchair and argued that this was discrimination. Under the UK's Disability Discrimination Act, service providers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. Such an adjustment, argued Mr Ross, would be the provision of a free wheelchair. With support from the Disability Rights Commission (DRC), Mr Ross sued – and won.
Judge Crawford Lindsay QC wrote:
"On the evidence I accept the submissions that Ryanair were and are discriminating unlawfully against different classes of the disabled. They cannot escape liability by asserting that they are treating the more disabled in a more favourable manner."
Judge Lindsay awarded Mr Ross compensation of £1,000 for injury to feelings, £36 for the two payments of £18 to Ryanair and £300 reimbursement for the wheelchair Mr Ross felt compelled to buy.
The decision, on 30th January 2004, was immediately welcomed by the DRC.
Chairman Bert Massie said:
"Ryanair's wheelchair charge was a slap in the face to disabled people wanting to take advantage of low cost air travel. All right-thinking people knew that the charge was grossly unfair. The judgment today has confirmed that it is Ryanair's responsibility to pick up the costs. I suggest they do this with some humility."
"It beggars belief that a company with £165.23 million annual profits last year should quibble over meeting the cost of providing disabled people with a wheelchair. Perhaps before counting their pennies, Ryanair should have considered the cost to their reputation and the distress caused to disabled people, by acting in such a discriminatory way."
But there was more to the story than featured in much of the press coverage.
Ryanair accepted from the start of the trial that Mr Ross should not have had to pay for the hire of a wheelchair and that he had been discriminated against. Its argument was simply that it should be Stansted Airport Limited that should absorb the cost, not Ryanair.
Mr Ross had bought his ticked to Perpignan for just £10. Before the trial, the airline had argued in a letter to the DRC that, for wheelchair bound passengers, "we actually spend more money to carry them to/from our aircraft than they pay us for the entire fare."
But the letter unwisely added that it would not extend its subsidy to non-wheelchair bound passengers "because if these passengers are not wheelchair bound, they are clearly capable of walking to/from the airport check-in areas, and it is not unreasonable to ask them to walk to the aircraft."
Unsurprisingly, Ryanair sought to distance itself from these comments in court. However, it maintained that Stansted Airport should pick up the costs. Stansted disagreed, arguing that it was customary for the passenger to become the responsibility of the airline once checked in. Only at Kerry Airport, said Stansted, does the cost of providing wheelchair assistance lie with the airport.
After considering the evidence, Judge Lindsay concluded that Stansted was right: it was Ryanair's responsibility to provide a free wheelchair, and that was a reasonable step for Ryanair to take in terms of the Disability Discrimination Act.
The media coverage of this case focused almost entirely on the fact that Ryanair had discriminated against a disabled person. But Struan Robertson, editor of OUT-LAW.COM, commented: "While Ryanair may have handled the complaint badly, it seems harsh to completely ignore its argument that the airport should meet the costs rather than the airline."
Robertson says the case sends an important message to anyone concerned about breaching the Disability Discrimination Act: "The negative PR in a finding of discrimination can easily overshadow any excuses – however valid they may seem."
The other point worthy of note is the level of compensation. "There has been a lot of scaremongering about the likely compensation in cases of discrimination," said Robertson. "In the case of Mr Ross, the figure was relatively modest. It's the PR that often will be much more expensive."
Ryanair said after the ruling that it would add 50p to every ticket to cover the cost of providing wheelchairs.