An airline has been directed to pay €7,500 in compensation to a passenger who was denied his seat in an emergency exit row that he had specifically reserved due to a disability.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found that the airline had discriminated against the passenger by failing to provide reasonable accommodation and harassing him because of his condition.

The WRC also mandated the airline to establish procedures to assess the capacity and mobility of travelers seeking Special Category Passenger status before rejecting a booking in any part of the aircraft.

The passenger, who is autistic and needed an emergency row seat to accommodate a sleep apnoea device, alleged that the airline violated the Equal Status Act by discriminating against him based on his disability.

The WRC ruled that the parties involved should remain anonymous due to the complainant's disability.

The airline argued that passengers with disabilities are not allowed to sit in emergency exit seats.

However, the WRC determined that the airline's decision to deny the passenger his chosen seat was not based on a correct interpretation of the regulations.

WRC adjudication officer, Pat Brady, stated that the regulations do not impose a blanket ban on seating special category passengers in an emergency exit row unless their disability or lack of mobility poses a safety risk during an evacuation.

The passenger had informed the airline while booking a return flight from Dublin to London that he needed special assistance and desired a seat with extra legroom at the emergency exit due to his sleep apnoea machine.

He received the requested seat without any issues on the outward journey but was informed during check-in for the return flight that his seat had been changed due to his disability.

Despite explaining his ability to assist in emergencies, the passenger was placed in a cramped seat for the flight, which he found humiliating.

The airline contended that the cabin crew on the initial flight was unaware of his status and that the passenger had identified himself as having a disability.

While acknowledging the airline's safety obligations, Mr. Brady emphasized the need to prevent potential discrimination and ensure reasonable accommodation.

He clarified that the critical criterion for seating in an emergency exit row is mobility and its impact on safety during emergencies.

Mr. Brady concluded that the airline's actions constituted harassment and failed to provide reasonable accommodation to the passenger.

The WRC dismissed the passenger's claim of victimization for being moved to another seat after accusing the airline of discrimination.