An airline has been ordered to pay €7,500 in compensation to an autistic passenger after refusing to allow him to sit in an exit row seat he had pre-booked for extra legroom, a ruling by Ireland’s Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has revealed.
The decision, issued anonymously for legal reasons, upheld the man’s claims of disability discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act, citing a series of missteps by airline staff that culminated in what was described as a “shambles” at the departure gate.
The incident occurred in March 2024 during the claimant’s return flight to Dublin from London. He had flown out without issue in seat 12A — an exit row he booked in advance — and had written to the airline before his journey, requesting special assistance due to autism and his need for a sleep apnoea machine.
His correspondence noted difficulties with queuing and highlighted the importance of seating arrangements that could accommodate medical equipment. The man also included relevant medical documentation.
While the outbound journey went smoothly, things quickly deteriorated at check-in for his return leg on March 18, when staff informed him that he had been removed from his assigned seat “due to his disability.”
Despite presenting medical certification and asking that the matter be handled “quickly and discreetly,” he was redirected to speak with the cabin crew. However, his attempt to avoid further public discussion of his disability was unsuccessful.
At the boarding gate, he approached a staff member who, according to his testimony, did not grasp the nature of his issue. As other passengers began queuing behind him, he was forced to explain his diagnosis again in public.
A second gate worker was then brought in, who reportedly told the man that he could not sit in the emergency exit row “as a result of being autistic,” a comment the claimant said left him feeling exposed and degraded.
The tribunal heard that the situation left the passenger humiliated, as “everyone in the gate area could hear what was going on.” Despite trying to clarify that his disability did not impede his mobility or ability to assist in an evacuation, his objections were dismissed.
Once onboard, he was placed in the second row, where he described having to sit with his legs “pinned against the seat in front,” leaving him physically uncomfortable and emotionally distressed for the duration of the flight.
He twice requested to speak to cabin crew, and when a member eventually responded, he was again told he could not occupy the exit seat “because of his disability.” The man said the entire experience was “distressing, humiliating and degrading.”
He argued before the tribunal that the repeated requirement to disclose his diagnosis publicly, due to what he described as persistent and uninformed questioning by airline staff, amounted to harassment under the Equality Act.
In defending its position, the airline, represented by legal firm Arthur Cox LLP, cited safety regulations concerning “special categories of passengers” who require additional assistance or use medical devices.
Under these rules, such passengers are typically barred from exit rows to ensure the safety of evacuation. The airline argued it would be unreasonable to expect cabin crew to evaluate a disability’s specific nature or severity on the spot.
However, WRC adjudication officer Pat Brady found that the airline had failed to interpret and apply the relevant safety regulations properly.
Brady noted that the rules are nuanced and make “considerable effort” to define specific categories of disability and the actual reasons for restricting exit row seating—chiefly, issues relating to mobility, not diagnosis alone.
He wrote, “The regulations do not provide a blanket ban on seating any person who may be a special category passenger at an emergency exit row, unless the nature of that person’s disability or lack of mobility poses a reasonable impediment to the safe evacuation of the aircraft.”
In his ruling, Mr. Brady dismissed the airline’s defense and described the scene at the boarding gate as “a shambles.” He said the incident demonstrated a failure by the airline to reasonably accommodate a passenger’s needs respectfully and lawfully.
He concluded that the claimant was discriminated against based on disability and that the treatment he received constituted harassment under Irish equality law.
As a result, the airline was ordered to pay the man €7,500 in compensation for the distress and harm caused by the discriminatory treatment.
Additionally, the WRC directed the airline to introduce formal procedures to assess the mobility and capacity of passengers requesting special category status—before refusing or altering seat assignments, particularly those involving emergency exit rows.
The ruling serves as a significant reminder to airlines of their obligations under equality legislation and the need to handle requests for assistance with care, dignity, and proper legal consideration.
It also reaffirms that a diagnosis alone should not automatically exclude a passenger from seating arrangements unless specific safety criteria are met and evaluated properly.
The anonymized ruling could have broader implications for how airlines approach disability-related accommodations, particularly in balancing safety obligations with equal treatment standards.
For now, it stands as a strong precedent in favour of autistic and disabled passengers seeking fair treatment in air travel.