Denying Membership to a Taxi Driver Due to Developmental Disability Constitutes Discrimination
□ The National Human Rights Commission of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NHRCK’) recommended that the president of the ○○○○○○○○ union (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) provide human rights education for the union’s leadership and members to prevent discrimination against and improve awareness of persons with developmental disabilities. The NHRCK also recommended that measures be implemented to prevent recurrence.
[Case Overview]
□ The complainant filed a complaint with the NHRCK, stating that the respondent refused to grant them membership in the taxi drivers' union solely because they have a developmental disability, citing a perceived high risk of accidents.
□ In response, the respondent explained that the ○○ Cooperative is a taxi cooperative established under the Framework Act on Cooperatives. It stated that membership is open to both persons with and without disabilities, and that individuals with physical disabilities have been admitted. However, the cooperative withheld membership from persons with developmental disabilities who drive, arguing that their condition could pose a significant risk to passenger safety.
[NHRCK’s Findings]
□ The NHRCK’s Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Subcommittee chair: Standing Commissioner Kyusun Nam) found that the complainant had passed both the written and driving aptitude tests required for taxi driver qualification in 2024. The complainant was officially recognized as a taxi driver and has been working in that capacity since April of the same year.
Additionally, the complainant was issued a Class 2 ordinary driver's license in April 2019 and has maintained a clean record, with no history of traffic accidents or legal violations over the past five years. While the respondent expressed concerns about potential risks associated with taxi drivers who have developmental disabilities, no objective evidence was presented to support the claim that the complainant’s disability increased the likelihood of traffic accidents.
The NHRCK determined that the cooperative’s decision to deny the complainant union membership on the grounds of presumed difficulty or risk in performing job duties was unjustified. This decision was also found to be inconsistent with the intent of the Framework Act on Cooperatives, which aims to promote social inclusion.
Consequently, the NHRCK ruled that the respondent’s refusal to grant the complainant membership and access to union benefits constituted discrimination against persons with disabilities, in violation of Article 15(2) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities, Remedy Against Infringement on Their Rights.
[Recommendations]
□ In response, the NHRCK recommended that the respondent provide human rights education on persons with developmental disabilities and implement measures to prevent future occurrences of similar discrimination.
