Paula wanted to travel with her guide dog, but Uber drivers kept cancelling
Paula Hobley launched proceedings in the Federal Court against Uber this year, alleging that between March 2021 and November 2022, she had 32 trips cancelled after drivers matched to her booking saw a note that she was travelling with her assistance dog, Vonda, and refused to pick her up.
The Victorian woman claims the behaviour amounts to a breach of anti-discrimination laws because of her disability. She took legal action after initially making a complaint against Uber at the Human Rights Commission, where the matter could not be resolved through conciliation.
Uber insists it has not breached anti-discrimination laws. Central to Uber's argument is its claim playing down responsibility for its drivers because they are contractors, not employees. The group has argued this across a range of legal questions such as employee wage deals, working conditions and instances of driver misbehaviour.
In its defence submitted to the Federal Court, Uber maintains it is not a company that provides transport services, but rather, a technology company that provides users with access to its smartphone application, which matches them with and facilitates payments to drivers, who are independent contractors.
Uber argues that any alleged refusal of service is a question for the independent drivers, not Uber, which cannot control which jobs independent drivers on its platform accept. Uber argues it never refused Hobley its services, in that her access to the Uber app was never cut off.
Loading
'Drivers are the ones who choose whether to accept, ignore or decline trip requests... [Uber] does not have control over a driver cancelling an accepted trip request,' Uber said in its defence. It said it 'denies the allegation' that it ever assigned a driver to Hobley's trip request or to any customer.
Uber also said while it denied it had engaged in any discrimination, any such discrimination would not be unlawful because avoiding it 'would impose an unjustifiable hardship' on the company. Uber does not detail what the hardship would be.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Why it's the toughest time to buy a home in the past 18 months
The average number of bidders making offers at auctions nationwide has reached its highest level in 18 months, providing momentum in the market weeks ahead of the traditional spring peak. Buyers are more certain of their budgets and acting decisively, experts say, following two interest rate cuts this year and a recent hold. This bullishness, along with a fear of missing out during an upcoming busy period, caused a spike in competition under the hammer in June. Ray White data shows nationally last month there was an average of 3.1 active bidders, and an average of 4.7 registered bidders, for every property that went to auction. The active bidder metrics are the highest since January 2024 and measure parties who made bids on the auction floor. At that time, active bidders also clocked in at 3.1, to 5.5 registered bidders. The national pattern is reflected in NSW and Victoria participation numbers, which have risen steadily over the course of the year. In June, Ray White found an average of 3.7 bidders registered and 2.9 bidders took part in Victorian auctions. In NSW, 4.8 bidders signed on and 2.9 joined in. The pinnacle in both states, and nationally, was September 2021, when money was cheap to borrow and the upheaval of COVID-19 stimulated feverish buying and selling. Then, 4.1 bidders were active and 8.4 registered.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Dishonest and fraudulent' scheme: Bankrupt property developers ordered to repay $66m
Bankrupt property developers Sam Fayad and his sons, Fayad-Lee and Remon, have been ordered to repay more than a combined $66 million, which they stripped from one of their companies as part of a 'dishonest and fraudulent' scheme. Federal Court Justice Ian Jackman said that the trio had breached sections of the Corporations Act, which stipulates that directors must act in the company's best interest. In this case, their company, Special Gold, purchased a property on Argyle Street, Parramatta, for $2.6 million in 1998 and sold it for $73.97 million in late 2020. On December 17, 2020, the Supreme Court imposed a freezing order preventing Special Gold from dealing with the proceeds of the sale. On the same day, Special Gold's directors Sam and Fayad-Lee opened a bank account with the State Bank of India (SBI). Five days later, $34 million from the property sale was deposited into the newly opened SBI account. Millions of dollars then flowed from the SBI account to pay for other dealings that the Fayads had on the boil. None of these transactions appeared to be of any benefit to Special Gold and had been prohibited only the previous week by the freezing orders, the judge found. For example, on December 23, $13.25 million went from the SBI account to Remon Fayad's company to purchase shares in another company. 'The payments by Special Gold for those share purchases … constituted a dishonest and fraudulent design on the part of Sam and Fayad-Lee, to the knowledge of Remon,' said Jackman in his judgment delivered on Tuesday.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
‘Dishonest and fraudulent' scheme: Bankrupt property developers ordered to repay $66m
Bankrupt property developers Sam Fayad and his sons, Fayad-Lee and Remon, have been ordered to repay more than a combined $66 million, which they stripped from one of their companies as part of a 'dishonest and fraudulent' scheme. Federal Court Justice Ian Jackman said that the trio had breached sections of the Corporations Act, which stipulates that directors must act in the company's best interest. In this case, their company, Special Gold, purchased a property on Argyle Street, Parramatta, for $2.6 million in 1998 and sold it for $73.97 million in late 2020. On December 17, 2020, the Supreme Court imposed a freezing order preventing Special Gold from dealing with the proceeds of the sale. On the same day, Special Gold's directors Sam and Fayad-Lee opened a bank account with the State Bank of India (SBI). Five days later, $34 million from the property sale was deposited into the newly opened SBI account. Millions of dollars then flowed from the SBI account to pay for other dealings that the Fayads had on the boil. None of these transactions appeared to be of any benefit to Special Gold and had been prohibited only the previous week by the freezing orders, the judge found. For example, on December 23, $13.25 million went from the SBI account to Remon Fayad's company to purchase shares in another company. 'The payments by Special Gold for those share purchases … constituted a dishonest and fraudulent design on the part of Sam and Fayad-Lee, to the knowledge of Remon,' said Jackman in his judgment delivered on Tuesday.
