Latest news with #Hobley
Sydney Morning Herald
22-07-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Paula wanted to travel with her guide dog, but Uber drivers kept cancelling
Uber is trying to wash its hands of a discrimination case led by a blind customer who claims trips with her guide dog are routinely cancelled, with the ride-share giant arguing it can't answer for its drivers' behaviour because they are contractors, not employees. 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.
The Age
22-07-2025
- Business
- The Age
Paula wanted to travel with her guide dog, but Uber drivers kept cancelling
Hobley, in her response to Uber's defence, hit back at the notion that she and other riders enter into agreements with drivers directly. She notes Uber sends customers a receipt after each trip totalling the amount they paid to the company for point-to-point transport services, and that the receipts don't detail the amount their driver is paid. The ride-share company offers an 'Uber pet' booking class, alongside other options such as 'Uber X', but under its rules, riders with assistance animals do not need to book the specific pet option. Instead, customers who travel with assistance animals can opt in to a program that identifies them as travelling with an animal to drivers who accept their trip. When drivers, some of whom may prefer not to accept Uber pet trips, accept a regular trip request and are then notified that the customer will be travelling with an assistance animal, the app generates a notification that drivers are legally obliged under anti-discrimination law to accept the trip. However, Hobley claims drivers routinely cancel on her, causing her to become stranded and miss medical appointments and social functions. Hobley, in comments made before Uber filed its defence, alleged Uber had taken a 'softly-softly' approach to enforcing drivers' legal obligations. 'If I can't find a driver who will take me to essential appointments, my only other option is a long, indirect trip on public transport,' Hobley said this year, adding that what is a 10-minute car trip to an appointment near her place takes nearly an hour by bus. The experience of having trips cancelled has become 'too draining', to the point that Hobley avoids certain activities due to the risk of a cancellation. 'I need to be able to travel without stress and considerable pre-planning, just like most people do. This is a right, not a privilege,' Hobley said. Hobley said she was not asking for special treatment but had launched the legal action – in which the Justice and Equity Centre are representing her – so that drivers 'do their job and Uber enforce that'. The legal standing of Uber's claim is unclear. Alastair McEwin, who formerly served as Australia's disability discrimination commissioner and is a professor of practice in disability at the University of NSW, said a disabled person could not be refused service because of a disability support they require, such as an assistance animal. Contractors were covered by the act, he said. Loading He also questioned Uber's claim of unjustifiable hardship, noting carrying assistance animals did not cost extra and that Uber had not specified hardships such as cleaning charges. 'If the court were to find in Uber's favour in this case, it could potentially set a dangerous precedent that global organisations like Uber do not have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act and therefore have no obligation to be accessible for disabled people,' McEwin says. Lee Kumutat, advocacy and policy manager at Guide Dogs Australia, said Hobley's experiences were 'all too common'. Kumutat pointed to research by the organisation that found 50 per cent of people requiring guide dogs had had an issue with ride-share or taxi companies in the past two years, with more than one-third saying their trip was cancelled. 'Uber should not be above the law when it comes to discrimination,' Kumutat says. An Uber spokesperson said if a driver refused service to a rider with an assistance animal, they must pass a test, and that a second refusal may result in permanent loss of access to its Uber driver app. 'The distress of being refused service because of an assistance animal is not something we take lightly at Uber, and we know this is a significant issue across broader society,' the spokesperson said, defending the company's investment tools and education 'to ensure drivers understand their legal obligation'. A mediation hearing is set for September.
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Uber called out over $35 response to 'unacceptable' act: 'It's a problem'
An Australian woman who claims she was denied service by rideshare giant Uber an incredible 32 times in less than two years is urging people with disabilities across the country to "stand together" and demand action. She has called on the government to intervene, emphasising that discrimination is unacceptable and must not be tolerated. Victoria woman Paula Hobley, who is blind, said that between March 2021 and November 2022, she was rejected by dozens of drivers on the platform, who took issue with her guide dog. Speaking to Yahoo News, Hobley shared the deep emotional toll the ordeal took on her mental health and urged others who have experienced the same to come forward. Hobley is now suing Uber in the Federal Court, claiming drivers broke disability discrimination laws by refusing to pick her up. "It's made me extremely frustrated and angry," Hobley told Yahoo. "And, it's limited the things that I do because I weigh up the costs of the stress of the refusals, against the benefit of doing the activity. "It means there are times I don't attend appointments that I would benefit from or resort to doing things online that would be better to do in person." Hobley claimed she repeatedly reported the refusals to Uber — but the pattern continued. She said it's now made her wary of travelling at night, over fears for her safety should she be left stranded alone. Heavily reliant on taxis and Ubers, Hobley said a trip that would take her just 10 minutes in a car would comparatively last over an hour on public transport. When she raised the issue with Uber, she was offered a shocking $35 in compensation. "Uber often provided me with $35 of Uber cash per cancellation — sometimes there were more than one cancellation on a day — and [only] sometimes they refunded me," she said. "Their written responses outlined that the Uber drivers I complained about wouldn't be able to drive for Uber again until they completed some retraining. But they wouldn't give me specifics regarding the outcome for individual drivers." As for the individual drivers, Hobley claimed her refusals ranged from "outright cancellations" to messages directing her to book an Uber Pet — a service with an inflated fee. "My service dog is not a pet. She has a right to access public places and services," she said. Hobley, represented by the Justice and Equity Centre, filed a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission against Uber for alleged discrimination. After unsuccessful conciliation, she made the decision to take Uber the Federal Court. Under Australia's Disability Discrimination Act, businesses cannot deny service based on disability, including refusal due to an assistance dog. While Uber drivers can be fined for such refusals, enforcement relies on individuals lodging formal complaints. Penalties vary by state, with Victoria's fine as low as $480. "I now avoid going out at night if I have to rely on a rideshare or taxi service because there's a risk I won't be able to get home safely," Hobley said. "I'm not asking for special treatment — I just want drivers to do their job and Uber to enforce that. I need to be able to travel without stress and considerable pre-planning, just like most people do. "This is a right, not a privilege." Jonathon Hunyor, lawyer and CEO of the Justice and Equity Centre said Uber makes massive profits, and should be held accountable. In the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024, Uber reported a global net income of US$9.86 billion, a significant increase from the previous year's net income of US$1.89 billion. "Uber is a massive international company making significant profits from providing a service in Australia. It has a responsibility to ensure its service complies with Australian laws," he said. "The law in Australia is clear: A business providing a service cannot discriminate against a person with a disability. This sort of repeated conduct by Uber's drivers shows it's a problem the company needs to fix. Uber needs to ensure that people with disability can use its service like everyone else." 'Horrible' reality millions face every time they board a flight Frustrated wheelchair user unleashes over 'inconsiderate' act Aussie business apologises for 'outrageous' video mocking disabilities Hobley now is calling for other Australians with disabilities who may have experienced the same thing to come forward and join together in fighting back. "If this is happening to me, it's happening to people with other kinds of assistance dogs too," she lamented. "It shouldn't be up to people with disability to have to make complaints after they are discriminated against. "There is power in making complaints. If we band together and make complaints it sends a clear message to government and companies like Uber that this behaviour is unacceptable and won't be tolerated." Yahoo News Australia contacted Uber with regard to Hobley's claims. A spokesperson told us that the distress of being refused service because of an assistance animal "is not something we take lightly". "We have strong policies, tools and driver education modules in place to ensure drivers understand their legal obligation to provide service to riders with assistance animals," the spokesperson said. Uber stated it is committed to preventing service refusals and works with industry experts like Vision Australia to improve its policies. Drivers must comply with laws regarding assistance animals and receive training upon signup, with ongoing education. A first refusal requires passing a knowledge check to continue driving, while a second results in permanent removal from the platform. Do you have a story tip? Email: newsroomau@ You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube.
BBC News
06-02-2025
- BBC News
Gateshead honking horn argument leads to man being jailed
An argument over the honking of a car horn has led to man being jailed for almost two Tracey threatened to kill a man and his family if he did not withdraw a statement made to police following an earlier altercation, Newcastle Crown Court 40-year-old, from Gateshead, then drove his car into a lorry and at another motorist after another who had a history of violent offending, was jailed for 22 months after admitting witness intimidation and dangerous driving. An argument allegedly broke out between Tracey and two brothers on 12 May after his then-partner was challenged for incessantly sounding her car horn in a residential street, prosecutor John Hobley were called after Tracey and several others allegedly attacked one of the brothers, although no charges were ever brought, the court days later, Tracey confronted the other brother while the victim was walking his dog and told him to withdraw his statement or he would kill the man, his family and his dog, Mr Hobley said. 'Constantly looking over shoulder' A short while later, Tracey was attacked with a metal bar which broke his arm and he got into his Audi to drive away, the court heardBut instead of leaving, he drove aggressively up and down the street, crashing into a parked vehicle, Mr Hobley then attempted to overtake a line of traffic but cut one driver up and crashed into a lorry, the court the other driver got out of his car to remonstrate with Tracey, Tracey drove at the man at speed before leaving, the court his police interview, Tracey told officers he was in a panic after being attacked and offered his apologies to the other motorist and the lorry a statement read to the court, the victim of the witness intimidation said the incident had been "horrific" and he had been "constantly looking over his shoulder" court heard Tracey, of Willerby Court, had 11 convictions for 20 offences, including serious Tim Gittins said he had formed no view over who was responsible for the original dispute but said Tracey had reacted in "extreme terms".He was also banned from driving for three years and 11 months. Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram. Send your story ideas here.
