He never did present a passport to the agent in the office.
That’s why he wasn’t able to rent.
He offered a passport to the national agent later when complaining on the phone, after they explained that yes the agent and manager were right in requiring one.
Why do you think the agent should be fired for requiring a passport as called for in her training and company policy?
One reason, I worked in Law. The word “may” have to show passport in addition to DL. If they rented before with only DL, they probably did wonder why. There has been some things going on with Israeli merchandise in France and things going on in this Country with colleges and anti-semetic actions. The couple might have thought there was some new denial of Israeli citizens.
Assuming the workers had no malice intended and I am assuming they did not (unless video or audio comes out), Avis had a problem with consistency.
The Selective Service Law uses the word “may” on Illegal Immigrants that haven’t/didn’t register. It “may” effect their citizenship. Strangely, the Govt. also had no problem in the same paragraph denying Govt. jobs/benefits/finacial aid for college.
Like the Clinton “is” delemma.
That’s all I’m saying. It’s too bad that whomever is in charge of policy review over at Avis, hadn’t cleaned up and company-wide made clear the requirements.
I get real ticked if someone thinks I am a racist because my skin is: yellow, tan, slightly green, mixed with red/peach.
I don’t think the agents should be fired, unless proven by a shadow of a doubt they are a racist. The entire company needs to read a new, short, sweet, requirements to rent a car (documents needed).
Because when he showed it to her she STILL refused? Maybe?