No. 07-00-540/2018-02 Date: 10 November 2018

OPINION

This Opinion was issued in a procedure following a complaint filed by М. G. against company Z. T. dоо B. due to disability-based discrimination. In the complaint was stated that М. G, using interpretation services of the Video Relay Centre of the City Organisation of the Deaf of Belgrade called Z. T. dоо B. with an intention to rent a car. It was further stated that М.G. spoke with I. Đ., an employee in the company, who insisted on getting answers to questions: ”Is a deaf person driving?” and “Does a deaf person want a car?” and who told M. G. that the in-house policy is that only cars with automatic transmission are rented to deaf persons and that at the time they did not have such free cars. The allegations were confirmed by witness V. Ј. who was hired in the conversation as an interpreter for the Serbian sign language. In the statement was stated that the in-house policy is not that only cars with automatic transmission are rented to deaf persons and that employee I. Đ. did not give accurate instructions for which reason he was subject to disciplinary responsibility. The company’s director stated that the employee suggested a vehicle with automatic transmission. I. Đ. stated that he was sorry for the misunderstanding and that he was in a big hurry that day, that he was surprised as he had never communicated using an interpreter and he apologised if he had caused any inconvenience. In the procedure was determined that employee in Z. T. dоо B. М. G. set an additional condition which he does not set for other service beneficiaries, which is that only a vehicle with automatic transmission can be rented, which put М. G. in an unequal position compared to other beneficiaires based on his personal characteristic – disability, and that insisting of employee of Z. T. dоо B. I. Đ. on questions: “Is a deaf person driving?” and “Does a deaf person needs a vehicle?” upset М. G. and created a humilating and offensice environment. After conducting the procedure, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality was of an opinion that actions of employee in Z. T. dоо B, I. Đ, put М. G. in an unfavourable position compared to other service beneficiaries of this company based on his personal characteristic – disability, which caused violation of the provisions of Art. 6 and 12 concerning Article 17(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Law. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality recommended to company Z. T. dоо B. to send a written appology to М. G. and to attempt avoiding violation of legal anti-discrimination regulations in the execution of its regular operations and activities in the future.