2019-01-07
The complainant has hyperthyroidism and has an assistance dog. She claimed that the respondent hair salon indicated that it would deny her access with her assistance dog, unless her assistance dog wore some kind of protection on its paws or used a floor underlay, due to the salon having recently renovated its floors.
The hair salon claimed that it never denied the complainant access outright. It claimed its suggestions for paw protection and/or a floor underlay were attempts to accommodate the complainant and her assistance animal.
The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hair salon pay the complainant the ex gratia sum of $450.00.
Year
Discrimination type
Disability Discrimination Act
Grounds
Assistance animal
Disability
Areas
Access to premises
Goods, services and facilities
Compensation
Amount
$450