[HN Gopher] Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
___________________________________________________________________
Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
Author : choppaface
Score : 242 points
Date : 2021-04-05 15:51 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| [deleted]
| bgorman wrote:
| I think anyone who has taken Uber and Lyft a lot knows that they
| allow drivers to abuse the system for their benefit, with no
| recourse for riders.
|
| A few incidents that have bothered me: 1. Having an Uber refuse
| to take me to the airport from downtown Chicago 2. Lyft not
| giving me an automatic refund for a pickup in SOMA when the
| driver had been heading down 101 for 10 minutes and was showing
| no signs of turning around. 3. Every Uber driver cancelling rides
| at LAX to force surge pricing.
|
| I'm not suprised that Uber drivers do not want to deal with
| riders with disabilities. Since Uber and Lyft are not profitable
| they can't even afford to kick any drivers off the platform other
| than drivers that pose a risk of physical danger to passengers.
|
| Until Uber and Lyft implement a system that actually can result
| in negative consequences for unethical drivers, I have no
| sympathy for any losses these companies incur.
| fastball wrote:
| So the bad behavior is on the part of the drivers, not the
| company, but you prefer the company to get punished?
| shuntress wrote:
| The drivers represent the company and all interactions with
| the driver are setup through the company. So, yes.
|
| ie: If a driver snatches my backpack and drives away, I
| expect Uber to replace/return what was stolen from me by
| their contractor. Not for them to just tell me to take a hike
| and deal with it myself.
| fastball wrote:
| So there is absolutely nothing a company can do to absolve
| themselves of the poor behavior of employees? By that
| system, Uber would still be at fault if they explicitly
| told all drivers "you are not allowed to deny service to
| someone with a service dog under any circumstances", and a
| driver did anyway.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Not really. The only thing a company can do is let their
| commercial liability insurance bear the costs. That's why
| it's such a big deal to document, document, document and
| force all employees to undergo certain training
| repeatedly throughout the year.
|
| That way the business can show the insurance companies
| that they did all they could to prevent the employee from
| the error so that the insurer is liable for the expenses.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Uber specifically placed itself in the role of
| intermediary. I don't have a phone book of drivers
| numbers and I don't pay a driver. I have the Uber app and
| I pay Uber.
|
| They want the money, part of earning it is accepting
| responsibility and liability.
|
| Why in the world is anyone even remotely worried about
| the plight of poor Uber? Holy cow.
| shuntress wrote:
| I'm not saying the company is necessarily at fault.
|
| What I am saying is that I deal with the company not the
| individual ( _especially_ in this case as that is
| literally Uber 's entire business).
|
| If an Uber drive assaults, injures, and robs me I expect
| Uber to get back to me with "We have brought this matter
| to the appropriate authorities please follow up with
| [individual] at [my local police]" rather than "That
| wholly independent contractor's name is [driver name].
| Good luck"
|
| edit: I would also expect a good company to cover any
| expenses I incur from the incident as well as replace
| stolen property.
| airstrike wrote:
| It's called the cost of doing business.
| valuearb wrote:
| It's called suing deep pockets, not the persons actually
| liable.
| grumple wrote:
| > So there is absolutely nothing a company can do to
| absolve themselves of the poor behavior of employees?
|
| Let's disregard the absolutism for a bit. Generally
| companies are held accountable for the way their
| employees behave on the job. If they don't make or
| enforce policies, that's on Uber. It's clearly a
| widespread problem for them. The saying goes "the buck
| stops here" despite what these companies may do to avoid
| responsibility.
| staticman2 wrote:
| That's how the legal system usually works. If a Walmart
| driver negligently runs you over when working for
| Walmart, there is nothing Walmart can do to not be
| responsible.
|
| There's no special "I told my staff not to run people
| over!" exception that a Walmart supervisor can claim.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| Uber has chosen this as a business model. Nobody forced
| them to hire thousands upon thousands of people with zero
| vetting and send them out to deliver rides. It may be
| that this business model doesn't work.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| I was a victim of "vomit fraud" where the driver sends in fake
| photos from an identical model vehicle of interior damage and
| pockets the money. I now take photos of the interior of the car
| before and after.
|
| Uber charged me for the "damage" same-day and reversed the
| charges two days later after I sent them article after article
| on the issue and pointed out it was a Sunday noon drive not a
| late night Friday escapade.
|
| What's worse is that good drivers who do have their vehicles
| damaged now likely have to go through more hoops to get
| reimbursed.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Sometimes, it sounds like we should all have a 24/7 GoPro
| cameras attached and running all the time.
| asdff wrote:
| There needs to be some lighweight app so you can just stick
| your phone in your shirt pocket for the day and it would
| become your own body cam
| teddyh wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
| yks wrote:
| It sounds like Uber/Lyft will eventually degrade to the level
| of service of the regular taxis of old, when the default
| expectation of interaction is to get scammed or worse. Which
| means that another disruption opportunity is coming soon!
| lacker wrote:
| I'm surprised that the law requires you to allow dogs in your
| car. It's one thing for a public space, but for a private service
| it seems like it should be okay to have a no-dogs-allowed rule.
| kbar13 wrote:
| your choice here is that you dont have to drive for rideshare,
| knowing that you don't want dogs in the car. because the
| ability to choose goes both ways. and because the industry is
| unregulated, the company isn't required to do anything like add
| a flag for a driver to avoid having to pick up dogs
| Pfhreak wrote:
| You can have a no dogs rule. You just can't have a "No service
| dogs" rule. Service dogs are essential to the welfare of their
| humans, denying them would be like having a "no glasses" or "no
| canes" or "no pacemakers" rule disallowing folks who need
| assistance.
|
| Yes, there are limits, especially if the area is dangerous or
| the dog is disruptive, but generally that dog should be
| considered to be a tool the human is using.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| Service dogs aren't dogs, they are medical devices. A car used
| in ride share isn't a private space any longer, it's quasi-
| public. The law (at least in the USA) is very clear, you can
| not restrict access of medical devices (whether service dogs or
| wheelchairs) in businesses.
| snurfer wrote:
| Most of the money went to the attorneys.
|
| "Irving took legal action against Uber, resulting in an
| arbitrator this month awarding her $324,000 in damages plus legal
| expenses of $805,313"
|
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-drivers-re...
| jagger27 wrote:
| Can you successfully fight Uber's uber legal team for under a
| million? Seems cheap to me.
| snurfer wrote:
| I guess it depends on how you define "successfully".
| kumarvvr wrote:
| Can a judicial system be sane enough that big organizations
| cannot leverage deep pockets to delay justice?
| jagger27 wrote:
| "One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming
| to have arrived at her destination."
|
| That's particularly awful and cruel. It must be extremely
| disorienting and stressful for a blind person to be put in that
| situation.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| Yeah, after reading this I can't forget it. Not sure what kind
| of animal one needs to be to do this.
| elil17 wrote:
| Well perhaps it is because Uber pays their drivers poverty
| wages. I can imagine a driver taking advantage of a passenger
| because they need food or shelter for themselves or their
| family.
|
| Obviously it's cruel to do this to a blind passenger, but I
| think the fundamental moral problem is really with the
| decision makers at Uber not with the driver.
| cwhiz wrote:
| Uber lost $8.5 billion in 2019, $6.77 billion in 2020, and
| recently reported a $968 million loss in Q1 2021. As a
| company, Uber has lost around $35 billion total.
|
| Which really begs the question of... who the heck is making
| money here, how, and why?
| delfinom wrote:
| The full time employees at Uber really.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Do you just come into threads about companies you don't
| like to score political points?
|
| Being an abhorrent dick to someone has nothing to do with
| "food or shelter for themselves or their family." It's like
| you're piecing together your remarks from a woke
| phrasebook.
| ecf wrote:
| If you remove all forms of monetary persuasion and simply
| look at this from the perspective of a human being, the
| driver is a monster.
| elil17 wrote:
| But the monetary aspect exists, there's no way to ignore
| how little Uber drivers are paid. Full time drivers earn
| about $30k/year without any benefits in San Francisco.
| That's less than half of the poverty line for an
| individual and less than a third for a family of four. A
| person earning that little money in SF is likely to be in
| a really really desperate financial situation - possibly
| homeless.
|
| Yes, doing that to someone is wrong. It's absolutely
| wrong. But I just can't ignore the people who put the
| driver in that situation and the culpability they have
| here.
| kart23 wrote:
| >The ADA makes it unlawful to require proof of a disability or
| identification for a service dog. According to the U.S.
| Department of Justice, there are no requirements for licensing,
| certification or identification of service dogs. Also, service
| animals are not required to wear special collars, vests or
| harnesses.
|
| I never really knew about this. Technically you could just bring
| your dog into any business and claim its a service animal when
| asked. If the dog is being unruly businesses can exclude you, but
| it would be an ADA violation to refuse entry. Quite interesting.
| m-ee wrote:
| They are allowed to ask if the dog is trained to perform a
| specific task which would differentiate a guide dog or medical
| alert dog that can't be refused entry from an emotional support
| animal that can.
| kart23 wrote:
| They're not allowed to ask you/the dog to demonstrate though.
| Someone could just say yes or make something up. It's lying,
| but the business can't really do anything about it.
|
| > Staff cannot ask about the person's disability, require
| medical documentation, require a special identification card
| or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog
| demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.
|
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
| m-ee wrote:
| Sure people could always lie. In practice I've seen people
| say it's an emotional support animal or produce their
| doctors note for it, which somewhat ironically confirms
| it's not actually a service dog.
| jariel wrote:
| "One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming
| to have arrived at her destination."
|
| What is wrong with people?
|
| I can understand something like this maybe happening once?
|
| But that this happened 14 times makes me lose faith in people.
|
| Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it
| stops._
|
| Empathy is built on the premise of relative economic equality.
| jariel wrote:
| Basic civility existed for thousands of years before abstract
| notions of 'economic equality'.
|
| That's an ideological idea that's nuance and I'm not sure
| most people even buy into as it's stated.
|
| My grandparents were born on farms without plumbing or
| running water, so was everyone in the area. They had
| incredible dignity, civility, kindness (although a kind of
| emotionally distant version of it).
|
| Yes, there would have been some ideals of 'equal before the
| law' or 'before God', and some notion of fairness about
| individuals amassing fortunes on the backs of others, surely,
| but not an ideological ideal of 'economic equality' and
| certainly not 'equity' as it's used today.
|
| Not dropping blind people of 'just anywhere' is something
| people 3000 years ago would have understood quite well to be
| wrong.
| asdff wrote:
| >Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it
| stops.
|
| Case in point, how many people have been griping about wearing
| a cloth mask, like some toddler who refuses to put on pants.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| > "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities
| Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind
| person can go."
|
| Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business
| owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a
| driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a
| dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with
| dogs and being near one sends me into panic.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| Then the business needs to find some way to accommodate both
| the employee and the customer. In Uber's case, the only
| requirement is that riders with guide dogs should be able to
| get a ride in the same time window as any other rider, at the
| same price. The ADA does not require that every driver has to
| drive guide dogs. It's up to Uber to figure out a solution, and
| they should have to pay up until they implement one.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| Thank you. I think this is a reasonable strategy. Requiring
| every driver to accept dogs against their allergies and PTSD
| on the other hand, I don't agree with, as that would directly
| endanger lives.
| shuntress wrote:
| This is equivalent to a landlord saying "Sorry, it's to
| expensive to build wheel chair ramps. So we didn't build any"
|
| According to Uber, you need to call up another driver and get
| them to come take over for you because Uber will not.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| If you're building a new building you should be required to
| have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't
| really a thing, so it's okay to require them.
|
| If you have an old building it's on the government to provide
| the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the
| cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with
| insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain
| buildings to standards at the same time.
| shuntress wrote:
| I don't think there was anyone signed up as a driver with
| Uber before the ADA existed but for the sake of argument,
| we can assume those people exist. Yes, I agree that they
| should receive government-funded training that teaches them
| to tolerate a service dog in their car.
|
| Every who signs up to be an Uber driver after the signing
| of the ADA must be capable of transporting service dogs.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Ah, a Stephen Breyer counterfactual.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| That kind of policy means that people with PTSD from dogs
| who are desperate for a job will sign up and WILL
| experience PTSD and WILL endanger riders.
|
| It's a shitty policy IMO.
| shuntress wrote:
| I feel like you might kind of be missing the point
| here...
|
| _Uber_ should have to deal with this systemically
| because it is shitty to just leave it up to the drivers.
|
| Please note that in your example here, it is also shitty
| for the rider who is expecting to be driven somewhere
| safely.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| Yes, I agree with you, _Uber_ should have to deal with
| it.
|
| A lot of people in this thread are arguing that the
| _driver_ should be forced to suck it up and I think that
| 's shitty for both the driver's and rider's safety.
| Miner49er wrote:
| I don't see much of an other option for Uber if they want
| to fix this.
|
| It's not uncommon for small towns to have one Uber driver
| going at certain times. Well that driver can't be the
| only driver around if they aren't going to take service
| animals. So Uber would have to tell them that they can't
| drive unless they are willing to take service animals or
| there is another driver around that is willing to.
| shuntress wrote:
| They have to make sure the service they offer complies
| with the ADA's requirements and where that is not
| possible they must not offer that service.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| The ADA has defined protected classes, and if you are not OK
| with a protected class you need to deal with it. How would you
| feel if I rephrased your comment:
|
| Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about
| business owners and drivers who are traumatized by black
| people? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash
| the car if there was a black person in the car of any kind.
| I've had traumatic experiences with black people and being near
| one sends me into panic.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Work on yourself. That's the only way
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| No. I shouldn't have to be around dogs. My fear is justified
| and I don't need to work on myself.
|
| Service robots are fine with me. But I shouldn't have to be
| forced to be around dogs.
|
| If someone was deathly allergic to peanut butter would you
| force them to drive Uber while passengers eating peanut
| butter sandwich in the back? And tell them to "work on
| themselves"?
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Fear of dogs is psychological, you can work it out through
| therapy. Peanut allergies are physiological, words wouldn't
| really help you there.
| orthecreedence wrote:
| I think it's unfair to hand-wave a deathly fear of
| something away as "just work on urself lol." PTSD is a
| real thing, and it's not as easy as a handful of video
| chats with a therapist. Not to mention, someone driving
| for Uber probably _doesn 't have the resources to be in
| therapy in the first place_.
| airstrike wrote:
| Eating peanut butter sandwich isn't protected by law.
| Having service dogs is.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| How the law is written doesn't change the fact that
| driving on highway with peanut butter allergy is life-
| threatening, and driving on highway with PTSD to a
| stimulus in the car is also life-threatening.
| adoxyz wrote:
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
|
| > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for
| denying access or refusing service to people using
| service animals.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| Again, the law doesn't precede science, and doesn't
| change the fact that it's going to be life-threatening.
|
| You can quote the law all you want, but if you're blind
| and someone with PTSD is driving (and because they don't
| have much of a choice job-wise) you're going to be in
| grave danger.
|
| If you don't want to be in grave danger, speak out
| against this law. End of story.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| >because they don't have much of a choice job-wise
|
| That is not an excuse to put other people in grave danger
|
| >End of story.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| You should take that into consideration before taking on a job
| that might require you to drive around dogs.
|
| As a country we decided long time ago, that people who require
| seeing-eye dogs shouldn't be subjected to substandard treatment
| by society - as was the case before the law protected the
| visually impaired.
|
| If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job
| that involves having to interact with dogs.
| keenreed wrote:
| Most Uber drivers did not "took a job". Uber drivers
| originally started as self-employed contractors. Part of that
| is ability to refuse some rides.
|
| Most dog owners have no control over their animals. I have
| PTSD from dogs, if dog would touch me, I will go into panic
| attack, and it will not go well for anyone. It is question of
| safety.
|
| So I have a question for you. As a driver, do I have a right
| to refuse a drive, if I am concerned that customer will start
| licking me?
| NLips wrote:
| If you are driven into a panic by being near a service dog, you
| are not fit to be a taxi driver. That seems pretty reasonable
| to me.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| If you are providing rides as a business, you must be willing
| to accept seeing eye dogs. If you cannot meet this
| qualification, then your options are limited.
|
| I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like you might not want to own
| a driving business or you may want to work with your employer
| to accommodate your needs. (e.g. by dispatching another driver,
| etc.)
| lupire wrote:
| Drivers are not a "business". They are laborers for Uber,
| which is the business.
| anoonmoose wrote:
| That's how it should be, that is not how it is.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| I mean, yeah, I'd love to liver in that world.
| Unfortunately, Uber has campaigned widely that their
| drivers are, in fact, independent contractors and not
| employees.
|
| The drivers _should_ be employees, imo, but the way the
| company is structured today, they are not.
| Operyl wrote:
| Then it's time to get into a different kind of business,
| really.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| Not every Uber driver has much choice of a thousand companies
| trying to hire them.
| Operyl wrote:
| I'm terrified of heights, I probably shouldn't get a job as
| a window cleaner. Not every window cleaner has a thousand
| companies trying to hire them either.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| I think it's perfectly fine to be a window cleaner but
| refuse you're employer's request to go clean a 100-storey
| skyscraper and keep taking the 2-storey buildings you
| usually do.
| dapids wrote:
| Then don't drive Uber. Most businesses legally must allow
| service dogs.
| adoxyz wrote:
| Don't do a job that legally requires you to potentially have a
| service animal in your car then...
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| Not that I plan to, but if I did, I'd be able to pick up a
| lot of the slack of rides _without_ dogs so that other
| drivers could pick up the dog rides. I 'm sure many drivers
| are more than willing.
|
| I don't see how this isn't a win-win for them to allow it but
| give each driver a preference.
| adoxyz wrote:
| Because it's discrimination against people with
| disabilities and per the ADA illegal.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| So if I really need the cash, I need to risk my life and
| the customer's life in the name of ADA compliance ...
| adoxyz wrote:
| With that kind of logic, why not just a rob a bank if you
| really need cash. They're both illegal. -\\_(tsu)_/-
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| Sorry, I don't think that's a fair or constructive
| comparison.
| Miner49er wrote:
| The ADA says that is not a good enough reason to deny service:
|
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
| lebuffon wrote:
| The elephant in the room is that some cultures consider dogs
| unclean. What to do when you as the driver, are a member of that
| culture and the rider wants to bring a dog into your taxi.
|
| I suspect a royal chaos ensues...
| duxup wrote:
| I would argue that a combo of the ADA and the nature of
| providing transit services would ... pretty much mean that
| working in transit is a choice that has a high likelihood of
| interacting with dogs... and that's on that person for making
| that choice.
|
| And most religions while they have restrictions about X, Y, Z
| are also generally forgiving of happenstance, accidental
| religious rules violations, and just the necessities of living
| with others people.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| This is easily solved by giving drivers bonuses for taking
| passengers that require more onboarding and offboarding time.
|
| When you don't see such simple, market-based solutions, you can
| be sure there's a regulatory reason for it.
|
| And sure enough, in this case Lyft and Uber can't do the common
| sense thing and evaluate a passenger's time to onboard and
| offboard and raise the price accordingly, because of the ADA.
| duxup wrote:
| I recall a couple cities where folks proposed Uber / Lyft as a
| sort of public transit option or just filling the gap of public
| transit and etc.
|
| Can't really do that if they simply won't / argue they don't have
| to serve some members of the public ...
| intrasight wrote:
| That a bit different a situation. The municipality would have a
| contract with a private company to provide public
| transportation services. Like with any such contracts, the
| recipient would have to abide by all specified regulations and
| also would have to hit performance milestones in order to get
| paid and/or renewed.
| duxup wrote:
| That doesn't jive with Ubers legal argument.
|
| >it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather
| than employees
|
| That's not likely to change contract or not...
| [deleted]
| kumarvvr wrote:
| Well, as always, lawyers take the juicy bits, leaving the actual
| victim with peanuts.
|
| Justice, is increasingly costly.
| fastball wrote:
| If $324,000 is peanuts then I think my nut allergy just went
| away.
| teachrdan wrote:
| I wouldn't say that $324,000 is "peanuts." Especially
| considering that, in most cases, that money is not taxed
| because it is compensation, not earnings.
|
| The amount the plaintiff won in this case is equal to 8 or 9
| years of (pre-tax!) mean or median income for a blind person in
| the US:
| https://nfb.org//images/nfb/publications/jbir/jbir15/jbir050...
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| ~30% of a settlement _is_ peanuts though. Also, do people
| have to pay taxes on these earnings? There goes ~30% of that
| if so.
| Simulacra wrote:
| This also occurs with taxi cabs as a Google search shows. This is
| absolutely something Lyft/Uber should be taking into account in
| their apps, but I think it could go even further. Female
| passengers can prefer a female driver; yes male can prefer male.
| Notify the driver ahead of time I have a dog, I have a child, I'm
| blind, I'm sweating like a beast please For the love of God turn
| on the a/c, etc.
|
| I'm surprised but also not, and saddened that in 2021 this is
| still an issue.
| florin_g wrote:
| As a homebuilder, 100% of labor is done by subcontractors. For me
| to blame subs for any issue is beyond comprehension. What makes
| Uber different?
| belinder wrote:
| Does an uber driver know when they accept a ride that the rider
| has a dog with them?
| shagie wrote:
| For service animals, it doesn't matter unless there is a
| specific reason.
|
| https://www.adalive.org/episode5_qas#14
|
| > Service animals are always permitted to accompany their users
| in any private or public transportation vehicle or facility.
| This means that they must be allowed to ride with the person
| with a disability.
|
| > One of the most common misunderstandings about service
| animals is that they are limited to being guide dogs for
| persons with visual impairments. But dogs used as service
| animals are trained to assist people with a wide variety of
| disabilities, including individuals with hearing and mobility
| impairments.
|
| > One more thing: charging extra fees to carry a service animal
| and an individual with a disability would also be a violation
| of the ADA.
|
| ---
|
| https://www.transit.dot.gov/what-americans-disabilities-act-...
|
| > DOT ADA regulation 49 C.F.R. Section 37.167(d) requires
| transit entities to permit service animals to accompany
| individuals with disabilities in vehicles and facilities.
|
| The cited part is
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/37.167
|
| That section reads:
|
| > (d) The entity shall permit service animals to accompany
| individuals with disabilities in vehicles and facilities.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| It shouldn't matter. As they say in the article, "The bottom
| line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide
| dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go."
|
| If the driver isn't willing to comply with the regulations,
| then they shouldn't broadcast their services on Uber.
| wccrawford wrote:
| Uber is required to provide service to that person.
|
| An individual driver is _not_ required to. If that particular
| driver can 't, Uber still has to provide that service for the
| passenger.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| This doesn't make sense to me. If a driver isn't capable or
| willing to be ADA compliant, then why are they driving
| other people? They shouldn't be.
| pygy_ wrote:
| You are getting downvoted for mysterious reasons, you are of
| course correct, and this is why the plaintif was awarded
| $1.1m...
| YawningAngel wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem as if it's legal for them
| to take that fact into account when making a decision
| dragonwriter wrote:
| If Uber drivers are employees, it is probably legal (and
| possibly _mandatory_ for the employer) to take the employee
| health impact into account when assigning employees.
|
| If Uber drivers are independent service providers to the
| passenger matched through a matchmaking service, and the law
| prohibits discrimination against people with service animals,
| they probably are not.
|
| Different jurisdictions (even within the US) may treat Uber
| drivers differently resulting in different results.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| ADA is a federal law, so I don't think it would make any
| difference within the US in different jurisdictions.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > ADA is a federal law, so I don't think it would make
| any difference within the US in different jurisdictions.
|
| ADA applies to employers for their employees
| disabilities, and providers of goods and services for
| their customers disabilities.
|
| In a jurisdiction where Uber is a provider, the driver is
| an employee, and the passenger is an Uber customer it may
| well apply differently than in a jurisdiction where Uber
| is a third-party-matchmaker-service, the driver is a
| provider of service to the passenger, and the passenger
| is a customer of the driver that locates and pays the
| driver through Uber services.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Presumably not. Even if they did, what should they do with that
| information? Service dogs have special status.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| How does this work for workers with dog allergies?
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Service dogs are bred to be hypoallergenic.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I don't think service animals have to be hypoallergenic.
|
| https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
|
| > Q26. When might a service dog's presence fundamentally
| alter the nature of a service or program provided to the
| public? A. In most settings, the presence of a service
| animal will not result in a fundamental alteration.
| However, there are some exceptions. For example, at a
| boarding school, service animals could be restricted from
| a specific area of a dormitory reserved specifically for
| students with allergies to dog dander. At a zoo, service
| animals can be restricted from areas where the animals on
| display are the natural prey or natural predators of
| dogs, where the presence of a dog would be disruptive,
| causing the displayed animals to behave aggressively or
| become agitated. They cannot be restricted from other
| areas of the zoo.
|
| Edit: also,
|
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
|
| > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for
| denying access or refusing service to people using
| service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog
| dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend
| time in the same room or facility, for example, in a
| school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both
| should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to
| different locations within the room or different rooms in
| the facility.
| shagie wrote:
| Not necessarily.
|
| https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
|
| Q22. Can service animals be any breed of dog?
|
| A. Yes. The ADA does not restrict the type of dog breeds
| that can be service animals.
| snypher wrote:
| How does it work for a bus or taxi driver with dog
| allergies? They have vehicles designed for separation of
| driver and 'self loading freight', not just some personal
| cozy ride.
| Miner49er wrote:
| That is not a valid reason to deny service according to
| this:
|
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
| NullPrefix wrote:
| What if animal shelter worker develops an allergy? Should
| the shelter get rid of dogs? Public service workers
| interact with the public, that's part of the job.
| cperciva wrote:
| I don't know about the USA but there was a recent case in
| Canada where it was affirmed that drivers with severe
| allergies can decline a ride as long as they arrange for
| another vehicle. Basically it was a "disability vs.
| disability" thing; the customer's disability doesn't take
| priority over the driver's disability.
|
| Note however that this dealt with _severe_ allergies -- the
| sort which would need to be accommodated by any other
| employer.
| tzs wrote:
| While under the law a transportation company must accommodate
| people with disabilities, I don't believe that they are
| required to have accommodation for _every_ disability
| available on _every_ vehicle.
|
| They can have a fleet of vehicles with a mix of
| accommodations ranging from none to fully equipped for
| everything, as long as when a disabled person calls for a
| ride the company can send a vehicle, about as promptly as
| they can send a vehicle to a non-disabled person, that can
| handle that person's needs.
|
| So if we were talking about a normal taxi company, that is
| one that acknowledges that they are a taxi company, then it
| would make sense for the company to ask when someone calls
| for a pickup if they have any particular requirements for the
| vehicle sent or will need any assistance from the driver.
| Then they could dispatch an appropriate vehicle.
|
| It would also make sense to tell the driver, since sometimes
| there is extra work or preparation the driver has to do or
| special handling of the pickup or drop off.
|
| With a taxi company like Uber that is pretending it is not a
| taxi company, it is a more difficult situation. If they just
| keep on as is, they will have more and more cases like the
| present case.
|
| I only see a couple of approaches Uber can take if they don't
| want this to keep happening and they want to continue
| pretending they aren't a taxi company.
|
| 1. Only allow drivers to use Uber if they and their cars are
| able to handle all disabilities at all times they they are in
| service.
|
| 2. Allow a mix of drivers/cars like the normal taxi companies
| have. Users can specify what they need and Uber only shows
| the ride request to drivers that can handle it.
|
| Should they tell drivers that a ride involves a disabled
| person? That would aid the driver who goes to handle the ride
| for the same reasons given earlier for normal taxis. On the
| other hand, it might lead to drivers giving preference to
| non-disabled requests, and so still land Uber in hot water.
| Maybe not tell the driver until after a driver has accepted
| the ride, with heavy penalties for cancelling after they find
| out?
|
| They could also just continue as is, except offering early
| settlements with any disabled person who can't get service
| rather than trying to fight it and running the cost way up
| when they lose. That might be financially sensible in the
| short run, but it bolsters the argument that they undercut
| normal taxis by skimping on compliance with the law, which
| strengthens the case for cities to regulate them as heavily
| as taxis are regulated.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| Transit companies are barred by law from asking in advance
| if a passenger has a service animal. Drivers are just
| expected to handle it. There is no special facility needed
| in a car to hold a service animal - they are trained to sit
| on the floor.
| kube-system wrote:
| I hope not. It shouldn't show any information about their
| protected disabilities, just in the same way it shouldn't show
| their age, religion, race, etc. What would anyone legally do
| with that information?
| jedberg wrote:
| The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in
| their app. As someone who takes rideshare with a small child who
| needs a car seat, I've had similar issues.
|
| A person with a dog will need extra time getting in and out, and
| the driver will need extra time to clean the car and remove any
| dog hair or other stains or spots. A person with a carseat like
| myself needs extra time to get into and out of the car while I
| strap in the carseat. I'm really good at it, but it still takes
| an extra minute or so to strap in the seat and then strap the
| child into the seat.
|
| The apps need a way for me to say "I have a carseat" or "I have a
| service animal" and then give a bonus to the driver for picking
| me up. Incentivize the driver to want to come get me, and
| compensate them for the extra time. I'd gladly pay and extra
| "carseat fee" so that I don't get an unhappy driver who gives me
| one star just because they had to wait for me.
|
| And in the case of the service animal, they shouldn't have the
| option to reject the ride and the rider should not get charged
| extra, but Uber/Lyft should have to compensate the driver for
| taking that ride as a cost the rideshare companies bear under the
| ADA.
| OJFord wrote:
| > The apps need a way for me to say "I have a carseat" or "I
| have a service animal"
|
| In the UK (and EU?) those are 'protected characteristics' that
| it'd be illegal to discriminate against. I suppose you could
| ask 'for information purposes', but you'd have to be prepared
| to defend yourself, proving that it didn't affect the service
| received.
|
| > and then give a bonus to the driver for picking me up.
|
| Like that. Of course people are free to think 'this driver was
| an unusually nice guy to me and went above and beyond to help
| with my wheelchair', or whatever, but it absolutely couldn't be
| required of the customer. You can't have a 'parent or guide dog
| user' surcharge.
| Rule35 wrote:
| This attitude that everything is the service providers
| problem is why service for the disabled is shitty. It does
| take longer to get into a car, etc, and that does cost a
| hungry driver more money.
|
| The extra cost should be born by society, which is where the
| requirement comes from. If we think the disabled should ride
| for the same price we should make that part of medical
| coverage and pay the driver for the extra time spent.
|
| As is, any sensible driver will ditch these fares with any
| means possible. More work, less money, and generally bitchier
| customers. The next time your fare comes up they'll pull over
| and take a bathroom break rather than responding.
|
| If we want something, we have to pay for it, not try to stick
| someone else with the bill.
| OJFord wrote:
| > This attitude [...] is why service for the disabled is
| shitty.
|
| Is 'this attitude' mine (GP's)? As far as I'm aware I
| simply described the legal reality.
|
| The point is that the driver _may not_ 'ditch these fares',
| and that Uber (et al.) simply bares any difference as the
| cost of doing business.
|
| They are not allowed, by law, to discriminate between a
| disabled passenger who 'takes too long', an able-bodied
| speedy passenger, and an able-bodied passenger who 'takes
| too long' for unforeseeable reasons, so it is just what it
| is (the 'forseeable' as the 'unforseeable').
| christkv wrote:
| Check out the mifold chair for kids it's great for when you
| have to use taxis or a rental car https://www.mifold.com/ it
| just simplified travel so much for us.
| jedberg wrote:
| We have a mifold for the older kid, but the younger one still
| needs a full carseat. When they were infants it was easier
| because I could strap them into the seat before the car
| arrived, and then just quickly buckle the seat in. But in the
| 11mo-3 year range, I need a full carseat that has to be
| installed before I can strap anyone in. :(
| yarcob wrote:
| I think you are giving service providers way too much leeway.
|
| Service providers should offer their service to everyone, not
| just to "easy" customers. Service providers should not reject
| you because you are disabled, because you have a child, because
| you have a certain religion, or whatever else is the problem.
|
| If someone is in the business of transporting people, they
| shouldn't be allowed to just pick the most profitable
| customers. Because if you allow that, everyone will try to
| undercut the competitors prices to get the "good" customers,
| and nobody will bother to offer services to the not so
| profitable customers.
|
| There's nothing wrong with needing some special accomodations,
| and you shouldn't have to apologise to the driver for taking
| two minutes to fasten a child seat.
| rogerdickey wrote:
| There is no "should". Service providers can do whatever they
| please. Look up Masterpiece Cake Shop.
| jedberg wrote:
| I agree with you, but the issue is that the Uber driver
| doesn't have control over it. If the driver were in charge,
| they would make their policy that the ride starts on arrival
| of the passenger and ends on departure of the passenger. But
| Uber doesn't do that -- they start the ride when the car
| moves and ends it when the car stops at the destination. So
| the driver loads and unloads on their own time. They aren't
| compensated for differences in accommodations per passenger.
|
| I try to make up for this by telling the driver to start the
| ride the moment I arrive and not end until I leave, but not
| everyone does that.
| usbline wrote:
| This is someone's personal property we're talking about.
| Should they forced to shuttle around drunken and incontinent
| people too? Why should anyone be coerced with being kicked
| off of a platform and losing (their possibly only) source of
| income because they don't want piss, shit, and vomit in their
| car?
| amyjess wrote:
| Because the Americans With Disabilities Act tells them they
| have to.
| usbline wrote:
| ADA also says these accommodations need to be readily
| achievable. Considering the income level of people
| working at rideshares, it's really not achievable and
| extremely unfair.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Uber has tens of billions of dollars. They have to be
| able to achieve it, as this ruling shows. They cannot
| violate the ADA. Playing the whole contractor charade may
| help them to get around minimum wage laws but it's not
| gonna help them get around the ADA.
| asdff wrote:
| I think the ADA would argue that allowing these people to
| enter your car is perfectly achievable. If you throw up
| in an Uber you get billed a cleaning fee.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| Saying that Uber doesn't have to comply with ADA because
| they pay their employees (sorry, contractors) nowhere
| near enough money seems like one of those "two wrongs
| don't make a right" situations.
| hluska wrote:
| We're talking about letting a guide dog into your
| vehicle. It's not like they were asked to transport toxic
| waste - it's a guide dog. How is that remotely unfair??
| asdff wrote:
| In this case, I think people need to realize what they are
| signing up for. If you deliver pizza it's a given you will
| start reeking of pizza. Uber is notoriously used for
| designated driving, and anyone surely knows by adult hood
| that having diarrhea isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of
| when, and basic probability would tell you eventually will
| get a customer with diarrhea or someone who is about to
| throw up their tequila. Luckily Uber has some protections
| for you in the cleaning fee charged to the offending
| customer, but with Uber's excellent way around lobbying,
| that's about all the protections to your vehicle you can
| ask for with this gig.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Uber and taxi drivers are allowed to refuse drunk
| passengers, but they are not allowed to refuse passengers
| with disabilities (thanks to the ADA). It's a completely
| different situation.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| > Should they forced to shuttle around drunken and
| incontinent people too?
|
| Holy red herring, Batman. Are you serious equating drunk
| people with disabled people who need physical
| accommodations? The ADA does not have anything to say about
| mandating accommodations for drunk people.
|
| Separately, people who are incontinent actually, you know,
| do things to manage their condition (like wear adult
| diapers as necessary). They aren't just randomly shitting
| everywhere. Your contrived examples are just downright
| offensive.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I didn't read it as fully a red herring.
|
| 1. It was in response to the poster that put forward a
| proposition that any and all passengers must at all times
| be taken; let's not take the response fully out of
| context just to attack it with outrage.
|
| Similarly, I charitably assumed by "drunk & incontinent"
| they mean, literally and as written, "those who are
| irresponsibly drunk to the point of losing control over
| their bodily functions"; not those who may have a
| permanent and manageable/managed medical issue.
|
| 2. In practical terms, if I may be blunt and practical
| for a second, a e.g. service animal shepherd: a) Legally
| and morally SHOULD be allowed b) ...Yet is absolutely
| equivalent to a vomiting drunk in terms of cleanup
| expenses (and in some ways worse - follow-up passengers
| may have severe allergy issues, or even the driver
| themselves!)
|
| There's no easy "win" here. We have to acknowledge the
| necessity of regulating/providing for all; but also the
| non-zero impact on the actual real live person driving
| the car. They are human too!
| darkerside wrote:
| > Yet is absolutely equivalent to a vomiting drunk in
| terms of cleanup expenses
|
| I know which I'd rather clean up after
| wdn wrote:
| This is not the only issue. It is an extension to a bigger
| issue, cancelling rides.
|
| There are many time I have Uber driver cancelling my ride
| from the airport because my destination is not the big
| metro center, rather, just outside of it. The driver was
| quick to accept the request, then called and then cancel
| the ride. Of course, the driver would said the customer
| "request the cancellation".
|
| This wasted so much of people's time.
|
| Please don't tell with all those smart people Uber have in
| their payroll couldn't figure out this. Or they simply
| ignore it.
| Ekaros wrote:
| This should be easily solved if the system were working
| correctly. That is independent contractors were able to
| make bid on ride request. Undesirable destination?
| Customer just has to offer price someone is willing to
| offer a service at. At some price point someone is
| willing to do the job.
| edgyquant wrote:
| This wastes time and cost 5$. More than once a driver has
| not been able to find me at the airport (despite me
| giving directions as to where I am) and then cancelled
| the ride. This weekend I needed a ride after I missed a
| flight, the driver shows up and after 15 minutes of me
| walking around the garage looking for them the ride is
| cancelled and I get a 5$ charge. I'm sure you can dispute
| this, and they'll likely side with you, but it's 5$ and
| I'd bet they bet on most people thinking their time is
| worth more than 5.
| inetknght wrote:
| If they're ferrying passengers for compensation then they
| absolutely should follow the law (including ADA). If they
| don't want to deal with _all_ types of passengers then they
| don 't have to be in that business.
| bawolff wrote:
| It stopped being their personal property the moment they
| started using it to run a business. Now its business
| property. They don't have to allow unruly/drunk/etc
| customers, but there are grounds its not ok to discriminate
| on when running a business.
| hluska wrote:
| I'm wondering if you're trying to make a different point
| than the one I seem to think you made. To me, it sounds
| like you're comparing people who choose to become
| intoxicated with differently abled people. If I choose to
| get so drunk that I'm vomiting, kick my dumb ass out of
| your vehicle. But if I'm sight impaired and have a guide
| dog?? If you kick me out of the vehicle, you're not only an
| asshole but you're an asshole who deserves to lose
| everything you worked for!
|
| I must have read your comment wrong. Sorry if I
| misrepresented you, but I can't figure out where I've gone
| wrong.
| yarcob wrote:
| Good point. Please note that I wrote: "There's nothing
| wrong with needing some special accomodations". I did not
| say you need to accomodate everything.
|
| If someone is drunk enough that he's going to piss and
| throw up in the car, it might be a better idea to call an
| ambulance instead.
|
| But to be honest, if you are in the transportation
| business, someone is going to fuck up your car sooner or
| later, and you really need to take potential cleaning costs
| into account. That's just part of the job.
|
| Don't want your car to get dirty from driving people? Then
| don't offer to drive people.
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _I think you are giving service providers way too much
| leeway._
|
| The problem is that Uber is getting work from the driver in
| order to meet Uber's obligations but without compensating the
| driver. The extra work required to e.g. clean the interior of
| the car after a service dog has been transported should be
| paid by Uber to the driver.
| pasttense01 wrote:
| It's always the case that some trips are more profitable
| than others: for example there is another passenger to pick
| up immediately at the same place you dropped the last
| passenger off at. So while it matters that in total Uber
| driving is profitable for the driver it is not necessary
| that the 2% or so of the trips with blind passengers are.
| rchowe wrote:
| Correct. If the drivers are treated as independent
| contractors and account for vehicle costs and paying
| themselves at least minimum wage for all working time,
| the profit margin on rides is quite slim, potentially to
| the point where the additional time to clean the car
| means a driver makes less than minimum wage. Were it an
| actual company, that would be illegal. Under Uber's
| model, it's "they are an independent contractor, we just
| match them with rides and handle billing."
|
| Uber does provide training that says drivers must accept
| service dogs. However, if there are issues, they are
| uncommon enough and the likelihood of a driver getting
| sued is low enough that a driver may just drive away.
|
| My gut tells me that drivers should be employees, or
| limits should be placed on using single-person
| independent contractors to provide a service like this.
| It's not going to solve every problem and the traditional
| "taxi" mentality is going to remain, but I remember the
| early days of Uber when drivers could not reject too many
| rides and stay on the platform, and it did seem to solve
| some of the management problems with drivers. Heck, maybe
| the answer is to contract the work out to car management
| companies with real HR departments like the airlines do
| with regional jet flying, so that Uber can insist on
| their high quality product and performance metrics and
| drivers can be employees.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Subsidies for these passengers might go further than an edict
| they they must transport these passengers. It's the carrot
| vs. the stick.
| frankydp wrote:
| Oh you mean like a licensing system that requires drivers to
| pick up all passengers? /s
|
| HAAS Act '37
|
| NYC TLC '71
|
| Operation Refusal '98
|
| Not that NY has it exactly right, but at least there was some
| structure.
|
| The entire business model of Uber is regulation avoidance.
| They did not "distrupt" any business they just did as you
| said and stole all the profitable easy routes/riders, avoided
| pricing regulations, and driver compensation regulations.
| bena wrote:
| Yep, I was talking about Uber/Lyft et al with someone
| recently and going over the point that these services are
| finding out that Taxi services charge what they charge and
| operate how they operate due to very good reasons on the
| whole.
|
| There's a lot of institutional knowledge baked into the cab
| industry and Uber/Lyft thought they could figuratively
| reimplement the whole deal in a weekend.
| dasil003 wrote:
| It's a convenient narrative, but if you ever tried getting
| a cab in the Sunset in 2005 you'd know that at least in
| some places Uber dramatically improved the ability to get
| equal opportunity transportation.
| GVIrish wrote:
| While you have the right idea, the problem is that taxi
| laws are not enforced enough to deter ride-discrimination
| behavior. Plenty of times before Uber/Lyft I had cab
| drivers refuse a ride because they didn't want to drive
| outside of the city at the most lucrative hour, or they'd
| just refuse to stop.
| mrits wrote:
| Uber certainly disrupted that industry. I would never get
| into a cab unless I absolutely had to. Now I'm not getting
| a new car once my lease is up because I uber everywhere I
| go.
| cactus2093 wrote:
| Just curious, have you ever actually taken many cabs in
| cities? Or Ubers?
|
| I see this complaint all the time and I truly can't wrap my
| mind around it based on my own experience. The difference
| between yellow cabs and Ubers is night and day. I've had
| countless cabs drive away and refuse to pick me up because
| they didn't like where I was going, and that's never once
| happened with Uber (I'm sure it happens some behind the
| scenes but once I get matched with a driver it's very
| reliable).
|
| There's even an entire industry in NYC of "gypsy cabs" in
| some of the outer boroughs, because the limited number of
| medallioned yellow cabs never go out there since it's not
| profitable enough.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I got off a bus once, at night, by mistake, in what
| seemed like a very bad part of town. I was waiting for
| the next bus to carry me away but became uncomfortable
| with my surroundings and so tried to get an Uber to come
| first. I had four or five cancel on me immediately after
| getting assigned and wound up having to wait for the bus
| anyway. I've never experienced that before or since with
| Uber.
| darrylb42 wrote:
| Taxi's do the same thing. Wouldn't come to the location I
| was in, hung up, told us we were in a bad neighborhood
| and shouldn't be there. Eventually the bus came, we
| didn't want to wait 60 minutes with luggage.
| saddlerustle wrote:
| Uber doesn't punish drivers for cancelling anymore
| because it kept being used as an argument that drivers
| are employees, not contractors.
| eloff wrote:
| I've nearly missed flights twice because of uber drivers
| canceling on me - 10-15 min after accepting the ride In
| Columbus, Ohio and Panama. If you've ever tried to get
| taxis in Panama you know they're worse though.
|
| If I'm going to take uber to the airport, I'm careful now
| to leave an extra 30 min over the two hours I would
| normally plan for.
| spunker540 wrote:
| I've had way more yellowcabs in nyc refuse to take me to
| the airport than ubers/lyfts.
| bgorman wrote:
| I understand what you are saying, but reality doesn't agree
| with this worldview. The reality of the situation is that
| some people need more help than others, and this help does
| cost more money/time/labor. I think overall it is a better
| experience if the marketplace for these services prices in
| the extra labor necessary for this help.
|
| Perhaps the government could subsidize the lost time. However
| expecting workers to do more work for less pay is not in line
| with human nature.
|
| Having children is expensive, and parents should be factoring
| in paying extra to do things.
|
| The problem you are outlining is that picking up non-special
| needs customers is the most profitable way to be an uber
| driver. If there was a bonus for picking up "special needs"
| passengers, the incentive problem could be fixed. Right now,
| "special needs" passengers just get worse service, and it
| will always be this way unless human nature fundamentally
| changes or they gain a way to signal to drivers that it will
| be worth the driver's extra time.
|
| Many Uber drivers barely make minimum wage.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > Many Uber drivers barely make minimum wage.
|
| Because they're legally allowed to be underpaid
| contractors. The law should be changed to fix the root
| cause, not to change this side effect. Uber drivers aren't
| barely making min wage because they have no incentives to
| pick up disabled people ...
| qaq wrote:
| So in this setup a driver allergic to dogs should not be
| allowed to drive for Uber?
| techsupporter wrote:
| Realistically, yes? If their allergies are such to the
| point that they cannot be physically in the presence of a
| service animal for any length of time, they may be required
| to decline the fare and the income.
|
| We impose a lot of duties on people who are employed in the
| service of the general public. Humans are messy,
| unpredictable, inconsistent beings with unique needs so,
| yes, it is possible that two humans will be a mismatch for
| each other in the public sphere.
|
| The law, and society in making that law, has generally
| decided that the right of a person with particular needs--
| such as a service animal or a carseat--outweigh the rights
| of someone to ply a trade in a customer-facing role. And,
| given the level of discrimination that people with those
| needs experience on a daily basis, I happen to think this
| is a fair trade-off. The person with the needs may not have
| a choice, or may have fewer choices, than the service
| provider.
| syshum wrote:
| Outside of service animals (actual service animals not
| "support animals") I think it should be perfectly fine to
| reject transporting peoples pets.
|
| I also think it should be fine to have a "no children"
| policy, we have all kinds of business we do not allow
| children in, and personally i would like to see more
| business adopt a no children policy.
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| I think you said yes to the parent comment but are not
| actually saying yes. Saying that "people with dog
| allergies cannot drive with Uber" is discrimination;
| allergies are also legally considered disabilities under
| the ADA[0]. Plus why would it be nessary if only a small
| portion of people have animals, and an even smaller
| portion need them for disabilities?
|
| What should happen is allow drivers to get a doctor's
| note that marks their car as unstable for allergies (that
| way they can't make it up to discriminate). Also allow
| customers to mark themselves as needing to avoid animals
| or needing animal-friendly cars. You don't even have to
| show this information to either party: Uber can
| automatically choose the right car.
|
| The law doesn't say every single driver has to pick up
| people that need service animals. It just says reasonable
| accommodations must be made.
|
| [0] https://www.aafa.org/asthma-allergies-and-the-
| american-with-...
| CydeWeys wrote:
| And Uber has been forced to pay up the $1.1M precisely
| because they haven't bothered to make any of these
| reasonable accommodations.
| vkou wrote:
| No, Uber simply needs to accommodate a passenger with a
| service dog, by assigning the closest non-allergic driver
| to them, and the driver not refusing service.
| shagie wrote:
| I would suggest that if the allergies are sufficient
| enough to reach disability, that instead of "Uber needs
| to assign the closest non-allergic driver" (because the
| ADA doesn't require that a passenger state that they have
| a service animal) ...
|
| Rather, Uber needs to offer accommodations to drivers.
| Modification of the vehicle so that the driver and
| passenger areas are separate and the there is sufficient
| air filtration.
|
| This way, Uber would be handling both disabilities
| appropriately with the ADA by providing the respective
| accommodations.
| seoaeu wrote:
| I think the challenge for Uber is that (despite being
| illegal) it still makes way more sense for a driver to
| pass up a $10 fare than spend 15 minutes in close
| proximity to an animal they're allergic to followed by
| however long it would take to sanitize your car
| afterwards. If drivers were employees, then Uber could
| just say "do it or you're fired" but as independent
| contractors the situation is much harder.
| alistairSH wrote:
| This.
|
| Blind passengers need to have reasonable access to cars.
| If Uber wants to play in that market, they need to figure
| out how to accommodate those passengers. If the driver
| needs a screen, or a stack of N95 masks, to avoid
| allergies, that should be Uber's responsibility to
| provide.
| filoleg wrote:
| This sounds nice in theory, and, sure, it will solve the
| situation with a driver having a dog allergy.
|
| But what about a more common and realistic scenario,
| where the driver doesn't have the allergy, but the next
| Uber passenger does (the one who gets into the car after
| the passenger with a dog leaves)? Do you propose to
| perform full sterilization of the vehicle after every
| passenger with a dog (and I mean an actual full
| sterilization, not just wiping the seats clean)? Because
| otherwise, the dog dander particles will still be present
| in the vehicle in some capacity, thus causing an allergic
| reaction in the next passenger who has allergies.
| floxy wrote:
| Everyone seems to be avoiding the real question. When is
| Boston Dynamics going to disrupt the guide dog industry?
| abawany wrote:
| UC Berkeley is apparently looking into it:
| https://www.newscientist.com/article/2273390-robot-guide-
| dog... .
| sorokod wrote:
| The way you phrase it makes it sound like a UI issue.
|
| It is probably more accurate to say that Uber _chooses_ to not
| provide this sort of functionality.
| jedberg wrote:
| I mean, I'd call it a UX issue, where the U here is both the
| driver and the passenger. There is no way for me to tell the
| driver I have a car seat, and there is no way for the driver
| to get extra compensation for it. Now that they've added
| tipping I can at least tip them extra, but they don't know
| that until after they give me a bad rating for "wasting their
| time".
| hluska wrote:
| Uber once had a program called UberFamily. I can find the
| blog article announcing it but can't find anything current:
|
| https://www.uber.com/en-TR/blog/uberfamily/
|
| Several years ago, Uber had a big problem in eastern Canada
| where parents of young children would show up without a car
| seat. In Ontario law at the time, taxis were considered
| public transportation so children did not need to be put in
| car seats, but Uber was considered private vehicles - they
| were required to.
| snapetom wrote:
| Op is saying implementing that is a minor inconvenience for
| Uber. If they wanted you to be able to tell the driver, it
| would take them a couple of weeks.
| sorokod wrote:
| Yup
| jedberg wrote:
| I'd say OP is wrong. The Uber UX is localized into many
| languages. It probably takes them quite an effort to make
| any UI change, especially ones that require localization.
|
| Also, the change I'm proposing changes the fee structure
| as well. I'm sure they do deep analysis any time they
| change the fee structure. It would probably take a ton of
| effort to add what I suggest.
|
| I think they should do it, but it probably doesn't come
| up often enough to be worth it.
| buran77 wrote:
| > quite an effort
|
| This feels like a misrepresentation of the kind of effort
| required. For a company of Uber's scale such an effort
| barely registers. And they could go live with the change
| in selected markets in the interest of minimizing it even
| further. But at the end of the day this isn't a matter of
| effort but of reward, and Uber probably sees none.
| jedberg wrote:
| > For a company of Uber's scale such an effort barely
| registers.
|
| You have that backwards. For a company of Uber's scale,
| this is a major initiative. For a small company they can
| just code it up and put it in the app.
| seoaeu wrote:
| By your definition, large companies are undergoing major
| initiatives constantly.
| jedberg wrote:
| It depends how they company is set up, but what I propose
| would require buy in from the finance group since it
| would change the revenue model, the UX group, the
| localization group, and probably legal for regulatory
| compliance.
| buran77 wrote:
| You can trust me on this one, as I've seen this process
| in the past in this kind of company and from the right
| vantage point: it stopped at "is it bringing us more
| revenue within the strategy we outlined for the next X
| years?".
|
| Uber has all the resources needed to implement this, they
| don't need to outsource, they don't need to commission
| studies, they have all they need upfront because it's the
| same skills and resources that make them money now. If
| they saw an opportunity they wouldn't have left money on
| the table.
| jedberg wrote:
| Oh I'm sure it would cost them more money in the short
| term. It would probably improve customer satisfaction
| though. Or driver satisfaction. Both of which would have
| longer term effects on revenue. So it's a question of
| whether or not they optimize for those things.
| zachrip wrote:
| Not every feature is launched everywhere. If they want to
| test out a new feature they probably pick a single market
| and try it out there I'd bet.
|
| > I think they should do it, but it probably doesn't come
| up often enough to be worth it.
|
| That's the thing, it's not worth it to the people that
| are not affected by these situations. To those that are,
| it's life changing. Which is part of the reason ADA
| appears to side so heavily with those with disabilities.
| A tiny inconvenience to a driver means a blind person can
| make it to work on time. The driver should of course be
| compensated for their time and any cleanup required
| should also be covered - that's a no brainer.
|
| Totally understand the fear of dogs or allergies, but
| people systematically abuse those situations which
| further reduces ease of access for those with real
| disabilities. Emotional support animals on planes for
| example - plenty of people need them but a lot of others
| just used it to get their animal on the plane.
| fractionalhare wrote:
| I don't think any large tech company is capable of
| shipping a feature that quickly. Even for a feature as
| narrowly scoped as this, going from ideation to
| deployment in a few weeks seems completely unrealistic.
| There's just way too much involved aside from raw lines
| of code.
| mcguire wrote:
| Is Uber a tech company?
| Ekaros wrote:
| Uber itself might be, the business it is in certainly
| isn't... Which is kinda dichotomy with many modern tech
| companies. The platform might be such, but in the end the
| product they are selling very much isn't.
| sorokod wrote:
| Uber app has been around for a while, blind people too.
| ggggtez wrote:
| Are we going to offer a "bonus" to drivers that offer to drive
| old people, because they may take a little longer to get in the
| car?
|
| If the difference between profit and ruin is an extra 60
| seconds for someone to sit down, then maybe the real solution
| is to pay the drivers a living wage.
| jedberg wrote:
| Well really they should pay the Uber driver until they
| passenger is fully departed, but right now passengers get
| upset if the driver doesn't end the ride the moment they
| arrive (and if they start the drive before actually
| departing), so the driver has to load and unload on their own
| time.
|
| I try to make up for it by telling the driver to start the
| ride the moment I walk up, and letting them know not to end
| the ride until I've left, but not everyone does that.
| hluska wrote:
| I've got the gift of the gab and so I see this differently.
| If I had no scruples or morals and chose to drive Uber, I
| could make an obscene hourly wage simply by picking up
| elderly people and engaging them in conversation. Most
| phone scams rely upon preying upon vulnerable, lonely
| people like this so sadly, it's a public 0 day with no
| known fix.
| jedberg wrote:
| I would argue that you're providing the service of
| companionship and should be paid for that too. :)
| Causality1 wrote:
| Why shouldn't they have the option to reject the ride? What if
| they're allergic, or deathly afraid of dogs? I have a friend
| like that. Anything bigger than a chihuahua and she'd probably
| flee the vehicle before driving it anywhere.
|
| Being able to reject work you can't handle seems like the one
| silver lining of being "independent contractors".
| Bedon292 wrote:
| Seems rather simple: Let drivers with allergies put that in
| their profile. Let riders put that they have a service animal
| in. And the system just doesn't pair them together.
|
| And now that the system knows someone has a service animal
| you can automatically review any cancelations by the driver
| and look for problems. I am actually kind of surprised that
| there isn't some review system already in place when a driver
| ends a trip early on someone. Unless the rider changes the
| destination, how can the driver not drop them off at the
| agreed upon location without getting flagged somehow?
|
| Could even in rare cases, if there are absolutely no drivers
| without allergies around, offer them a bonus to take the
| rider anyways.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| In two weeks, all Uber drivers will indicate that they are
| allergic to dogs. Next move?
| jonfw wrote:
| What's the incentive for a driver not to mark that they
| have allergies? You're essentially just giving them a
| checkbox "I don't want to deal with people who have service
| animals"
| kevinmgranger wrote:
| Uber could/should pay drivers who pick up service animals
| more to counterbalance.
| gwright wrote:
| Seems like that is pretty easy to deal with by simply
| asserting in the driver's contract that they can be asked
| for medical verification at any time if they make that
| indication.
| Bedon292 wrote:
| As long as it is not a large enough percentage of drivers
| to significantly affect the service times of those
| riders, does it actually matter? I mean, morally I don't
| think they should. However, those are probably more
| likely to be the people who were going to cause problems
| like this article talks about anyways. So it would still
| probably result in better experience for everyone.
|
| If 99% of drivers check that box, and it affects service
| times, then they will have to come up with some other
| option to accommodate the drivers. Prove the allergies or
| something, since some of them are certainly lying with
| prevalence being 10-20% in the US. And it would have to
| be a best effort, the rider with a true service animal is
| legally protected and a driver with allergies or fear is
| not a legal reason to reject service altogether.
| dnautics wrote:
| In big metros, Uber and Lyft could just have on-call backup
| drivers that are specifically employees who are there to
| handle this situation. If the metro is not "big enough to
| warrant it", then Uber and Lyft shouldn't be there.
| cortesoft wrote:
| > Seems rather simple: Let drivers with allergies put that
| in their profile. Let riders put that they have a service
| animal in. And the system just doesn't pair them together.
|
| I don't think you are allowed to require riders to say they
| have a service animal when requesting a ride.
| Bedon292 wrote:
| You can ask two specific questions about the presence of
| an animal. "Is the dog a service animal required because
| of a disability?" and "What work or task has the dog been
| trained to perform?"
|
| I would think Uber would want to handle those sort of
| compliance issues before the driver gets there. As you
| don't want the driver to get something wrong. And it just
| makes things smoother for everyone.
|
| Not sure if they can require a rider provide this
| information ahead of time, before pairing a rider with a
| driver. But if its voluntary, I don't see any problem
| with making the process smoother for everyone. Again
| IANAL, so could be off base though.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Yeah, I think the issue is that you can't require the
| rider to say they have a service dog ahead of time.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| I noticed a trend where lots of Uber drivers marked
| themselves as deaf, but really just didn't communicate in
| English fluently. I would imagine drivers would similarly
| claim to be allergic to get around having to transport
| service animals.
| ska wrote:
| > the one silver lining of being "independent contractors".
|
| It should be fairly obvious why employment contracts cannot
| be allowed to construct an end run around legislation like
| the ADA (or worker safety, etc.).
| elliekelly wrote:
| For every dog lover falsely claiming their pet is an
| "emotional support animal" in order to get special treatment
| there is a dog disliker falsely claiming (or perhaps grossly
| exaggerating) "allergies" and the result for both is the
| same: no one believes someone actually has a support dog and
| no one believes someone actually has severe dog allergies. If
| everyone was truthful and didn't seek special treatment both
| situations would be rare, easily handled, and a complete non-
| issue entirely unworthy of discussion.
| jedberg wrote:
| Then they shouldn't be in the rideshare business. Or any job
| that requires direct contact with customers.
|
| If you work in retail you don't have the choice to avoid
| someone with a service dog either. It's just easier to ask
| your coworker to take over for you.
| slig wrote:
| Most people in the "rideshare business" are working there
| because they don't have a better alternative.
| jedberg wrote:
| I mean, I sympathize with them, but that's no excuse. If
| you can't stand blood you don't become a janitor at a
| hospital. If you can't stand raw meat you don't become a
| janitor at butcher shop.
|
| There are other ways to drive a car for money that don't
| involve interacting with people and their possible
| service animals.
| mcguire wrote:
| If they are physically unable to work in the "rideshare
| business", however....
| Pfhreak wrote:
| Because service animals are protected under the ADA. If folks
| could unilaterally reject working around service animals,
| we'd put the folks most at need at a significant detriment.
|
| If you work in a customer facing capacity, you should be
| prepared to encounter service animals, full stop.
| treis wrote:
| It's not that simple. Allergies are disabilities too and
| they shouldn't be excluded from entire industries.
| Employers have to provide reasonable accomodations for
| employees with allergies
| Pfhreak wrote:
| It really is that simple. If you have allergies, you can
| ask your employer for reasonable accommodations. But you
| should anticipate that you have to come into contact with
| a service dog periodically.
|
| Most employers understand this, and will figure out how
| to make it work (ensuring there is someone else
| available/on shift, etc.) If you are an Uber driver, Uber
| is not your employer (though they should be, imo). Prop
| 28 was about issues like this, but now we're expecting
| drivers to understand and comply with ADA regulations as
| individuals rather than at the corporate level.
| hluska wrote:
| It is! If you have severe enough allergies to count as a
| disability, you should ask your employer for reasonable
| accommodations, be prepared to provide medical
| documentation if they're not obvious and win your own
| suit like this if you don't receive those accommodations.
|
| The ADA is really quite amazing.
| Trias11 wrote:
| It's part of the work.
|
| Not all customers are happy, clean 5-star big tippers.
|
| Certain percentage of customers are people with disabilities,
| drunk, with dogs and whatnot.
|
| That's part of a job to spend occasional extra minutes per
| certain percentage of customers.
|
| I agree that sometime (but not always) UBER needs to
| compensate driver for this and charge customer extra.
|
| You cannot be UBER driver who is allergic to slow moving or
| non-tipping customers and refuse your service for them.
| shagie wrote:
| That is an issue for uber to work on dealing with - it is not
| an issue for the person with the disability that needs the
| service animal.
|
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
|
| > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for
| denying access or refusing service to people using service
| animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a
| person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same
| room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a
| homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by
| assigning them, if possible, to different locations within
| the room or different rooms in the facility.
|
| Being an "independent contractor" doesn't absolve someone
| from the ADA.
| aksss wrote:
| How does the analogy of different rooms translate to
| vehicles? A different vehicle?
| shagie wrote:
| If the driver is unable to handle the service for a
| reason related to the disability (e.g. wheelchair,
| service animal), they need to make the appropriate
| accommodations. In this case, it would probably be to
| have Uber dispatch another driver who is able to provide
| the service.
|
| That's how it works for traditional taxi companies. Uber
| and Lyft, not being "traditional" taxi companies doesn't
| exempt them from needing to follow the same rules.
|
| https://www.thetransportationalliance.org/news/adanotice.
| pdf
| ncallaway wrote:
| Uber could assign a different vehicle to pick up the
| passenger's that need to transport a service animal, so
| long as it doesn't significantly impact their service
| times.
|
| A reasonable accommodation could be that driver's with
| significant animal allergies don't need to pick up
| passenger's with dogs. If a significant portion of their
| driver fleet has significant animal allergies, such that
| it would significantly negatively impact the response
| time for passenger's that need dogs, Uber would need to
| find a different reasonable accommodation.
| shagie wrote:
| > A reasonable accommodation could be that driver's with
| significant animal allergies don't need to pick up
| passenger's with dogs.
|
| I would put the burden the _other_ way around. Drivers
| that have significant animal allergies that reach the
| threshold of a disability should be provided an
| accommodation of a separator between the passenger area
| and the driver area with sufficient air filtration.
|
| Thus, the driver would still be able to pick up
| passengers that have a service animal even with allergies
| that extend to the point of being a disability.
|
| I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe that fear of dogs
| counts as a disability.
| seoaeu wrote:
| But also thankfully it seems that drivers being independent
| contractors doesn't absolve Uber of following the ADA.
| bonzini wrote:
| > What if they're allergic, or deathly afraid of dogs?
|
| If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown people
| for a living, just like someone who's deathly afraid of blood
| probably won't be a surgeon.
|
| Allergy could be handled by Uber, who should be provided by
| the driver with a medical certification of the allergy and
| shouldn't even show that car to the blind customer (if the
| ADA allows that).
|
| I think the driver shouldn't be able to see that the customer
| has a service dog, but I agree that they should get a
| compensation from Uber for doing that ride.
| Miner49er wrote:
| > Allergy could be handled by Uber, who should be provided
| by the driver with a medical certification of the allergy
| and shouldn't even show that car to the blind customer.
|
| IANAL, but I don't think it is that simple. Small towns
| sometimes only have one driver at a time. If there's one
| driver, they _have_ to take a service animal, by law.
| Allergy or fear of dogs is not good enough.
|
| Admittedly the liability for the driver denying anyway
| wouldn't be on the driver, it would be on Uber, but I doubt
| they want to be paying $1 million every time this happens.
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| > Allergy or fear of dogs is not good enough.
|
| I'm interested in this part. This seems to be
| counterintuitive. Is a waiter with a really bad peanut
| allergy required to serve a guest a dish with peanuts in
| it? Why does the clients (legitimate) health concerns
| override the drivers (also legitimate) health issues?
| Miner49er wrote:
| Well, I think the ADA only applies to businesses with
| more then 15 employees. The idea is that if you have a
| business that large, even if one person has a problem
| with dogs, not all 15 (or more) will, so you should be
| able to accommodate and provide service.
|
| So in your example, the business should have a different
| waiter/waitress provide service.
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| Ah, I see. That seems reasonable, honestly. So in that
| case, Uber should be able to just assign another driver.
| But the point about there being a small handful of
| drivers in an area still stands. However, I don't think
| Uber should be forced to provide service just because
| they technically can. If there are no drivers at all in
| your area, they'll tell you that (Or charge an exorbitant
| fee for someone to drive in) and you won't be able to
| take an Uber. It's not a requirement that they give you a
| ride no matter what.
| Miner49er wrote:
| > But the point about there being a small handful of
| drivers in an area still stands.
|
| Yeah in this case, a driver may have to take a service
| dog even if they have fear or an allergy, or Uber could
| be sued again. IANAL, but this is my understanding.
| nitrogen wrote:
| This type of compelled behavior seems like an oversized
| club to wield for the problem at hand. No _individual_
| should be forced to do something that will be harmful to
| them just because another individual belongs to a
| particular group.
| Miner49er wrote:
| No individual is being forced. _Uber_ is being forced.
| Uber 's the one that's gonna have to pay another $1
| million in damages or whatever if they don't.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Fair enough. A lot of comments are talking about forcing
| _drivers_ , even with allergies or phobias, to take any
| fare requested by a disabled person. It's definitely up
| to Uber to figure out how to comply and how to
| incentivize. Forced labor of individuals definitely isn't
| the way to do it, and is antithetical to modern
| principles of government.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| I am seriously doubting an allergic driver would be
| forced to take a passenger with a dog. Their immediate
| right to life trumps the ADA.
|
| There's more interesting arguments to be made, like you
| can't ask the driver to provide proof of their allergies,
| and so on.
| Miner49er wrote:
| Does there exist such a thing as a life threatening
| allergy to dogs?
|
| The rules are pretty clear that an allergy isn't a good
| enough reason to deny service, but it says that Uber
| should try and accommodate employees that don't want to
| be around dogs for whatever reason:
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| I'm not sure it matters if the allergy is life
| threatening or not. Again, you can't question the
| validity or scope of someone's disability under the ADA.
|
| You need to read the rules more carefully: they mean
| Uber, in as much as it is in control of the rideshare
| service, can't deny people on that basis. The individual
| drivers can and their employer must accommodate them
| under the ADA.
|
| If the drivers aren't employees and are self employed
| then as they are a business of less than 15 employees
| they can refuse anyone they want for any reason.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > It's not a requirement that they give you a ride no
| matter what.
|
| But it is a requirement that they not discriminate
| against customers with disabilities. Charging an
| "exorbitant fee" for a driver who would tolerate a
| service animal would be a form of discrimination, even if
| that fee was the organic result of a pricing algorithm.
| spuz wrote:
| There is no perfect solution to this problem, however,
| people in general - even those who enforce the law - tend
| to be flexible. The situation described in the article
| describes a person who was badly treated by Uber drivers
| and would probably have tolerated a service in which the
| drivers treated her like anyone else even if technically
| Uber did not tick every single box of the ADA. It might
| even be counter productive to force Uber to provide a
| non-discriminatory service to everybody everywhere.
|
| The law sets a high standard that we should all strive to
| meet but the courts tend to be full plaintiffs who have
| been wronged by companies failing to provide even the
| bare-minimum service. This appears to be the case here
| and we should probably focus on how to grasp the low
| hanging fruit before trying to come up with the "perfect"
| solution.
| Ekaros wrote:
| If the Uber drivers are independent contractors. Wouldn't
| they be a business under 15 employees, thus not required
| to be ADA compliant?
| Miner49er wrote:
| Well apparently not, or Uber would have won this court
| case, I think.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Uber has more than 15 employees. As such they need to be
| compliant, their contractors do not... It's weird
| situation, but applies to any areas where we are dealing
| with small subcontractors.
| bonzini wrote:
| But it makes sense, Uber makes an app that offers a
| service or has to design the UI and UX of the app so that
| its customers can have the service that is required by
| the ADA. How they handle this with their contractors is
| none of the Uber customers' business.
| ashtonbaker wrote:
| > Is a waiter with a really bad peanut allergy required
| to serve a guest a dish with peanuts in it?
|
| I'm having a hard time constructing a scenario in which
| the only way to accommodate a guest with a disability to
| the same level as other guests is for a waiter with a
| peanut allergy to serve a dish with peanuts in it.
|
| In this hypothetical restaurant, presumably the waiter
| cannot serve this dish to /any/ guests. And the ADA
| doesn't entitle you to have a restaurant make food to
| your specifications, as far as I know.
| CJefferson wrote:
| Restaurants don't have to serve peanuts at all. They have
| to allow guide dogs.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| > If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown
| people for a living
|
| Not everyone has a hundred companies trying to hire them.
| They have to take any job they can get to pay their food
| and electricity and mortgage and health insurance and child
| support and all that bullshit. And some of those people
| have PTSD from dogs.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Even if there are no jobs in your area other than dog
| groomers and you desperately need a job, if you have PTSD
| from dogs, you can't be a dog groomer.
|
| If you create two classes of driver, one who has to
| follow the ADA and one who doesn't, you've just repealed
| the ADA.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| No you haven't. ADA should be supporting people who have
| fears of animals as well, IMO. It's about supporting
| everyone, not just one class of disability.
|
| For that matter, a driver with a severe back problem
| shouldn't be forced to help a disabled customer with
| lifting their luggage into the trunk. A different driver
| should be found. ADA should support both individuals in
| being safe.
| hluska wrote:
| I feel like you misunderstand the ADA. The ADA does
| protect those people - they just need to ask for
| reasonable accommodations and be prepared to back up that
| request with documentation.
|
| Please note that this suit is not about a person with
| PTSD being forced to drive a guide dog. It's about a
| person who has a guide dog continuously being denied
| reasonable accommodations.
| [deleted]
| kube-system wrote:
| You can't reject work for reasons that are illegal.
| Causality1 wrote:
| Don't know about the US but in the UK the Equality Act of
| 2010 allows drivers with documented allergies to refuse
| rides to service animals.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| This is good. PTSD should be added to that as well.
|
| Dogs send me into panic and it would be a bad idea for
| the law to force me to drive against it. I mean, I would
| because it's the law, and as a result, you would be in
| danger.
| zachrip wrote:
| Couldn't this result in anyone just abusing this system
| when they don't want to drive with service dogs in the
| car?
| Causality1 wrote:
| Seeing as there is no national certification for service
| animals, the same problem applies to them as well.
| LocalH wrote:
| IMO that's not a valid reason to ignore deep-seated fears
| of others.
| pessimizer wrote:
| What if I'm afraid of homosexuals or black people?
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| I don't think that's funny or a valid comparison.
|
| Dogs aren't even the same species. It's not immoral to be
| afraid of them and having PTSD because of negative
| interactions with a particular predatory canine species
| is very normal.
|
| Hopefully service robots won't be very far into the
| future. I don't _want_ to discriminate against blind
| people. But I really don 't think there is a problem with
| not being okay around a particular set of non-human
| species (alligators, hornets, lions, coyotes, dogs,
| bears, mosquitoes, ...)
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| > fears of others
|
| Fear of other _people_ based on disability is
| discrimination. I have zero fear of blind people.
|
| Fear of other _species_ is not immoral. I 'm afraid of
| snakes and alligators, and I'm just as afraid, if not
| much MORE afraid, of dogs, and my fears are justified by
| both hard data as well as past trauma.
| zachrip wrote:
| Oh I don't want to force anyone who has that fear through
| that, and I'm not suggesting it. All I'm saying is put a
| barrier to prevent it being easy to be classified as this
| type of driver so that it isn't abused.
| ehmmmmmmmm wrote:
| I don't think the system would be abused that much,
| especially if Uber could offer a little extra financial
| reward to the driver for taking the service dog, to the
| extent necessary that people with service dogs get the
| same level of wait times and service.
| pkaye wrote:
| How to determine if the passenger has a service dog?
| DanBC wrote:
| In the UK you need to apply for a certificate to exempt
| you from this part of the law.
|
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/168
|
| 168Assistance dogs in taxis
|
| (1)This section imposes duties on the driver of a taxi
| which has been hired--
|
| (a)by or for a disabled person who is accompanied by an
| assistance dog, or
|
| (b)by another person who wishes to be accompanied by a
| disabled person with an assistance dog.
|
| (2)The driver must--
|
| (a)carry the disabled person's dog and allow it to remain
| with that person;
|
| (b)not make any additional charge for doing so.
|
| (3)The driver of a taxi commits an offence by failing to
| comply with a duty imposed by this section.
|
| (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is
| liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding
| level 3 on the standard scale.
|
| 169Assistance dogs in taxis: exemption certificates
|
| (1)A licensing authority must issue a person with a
| certificate exempting the person from the duties imposed
| by section 168 (an "exemption certificate") if satisfied
| that it is appropriate to do so on medical grounds.
|
| (2)In deciding whether to issue an exemption certificate
| the authority must have regard, in particular, to the
| physical characteristics of the taxi which the person
| drives or those of any kind of taxi in relation to which
| the person requires the certificate.
|
| (3)An exemption certificate is valid--
|
| (a)in respect of a specified taxi or a specified kind of
| taxi;
|
| (b)for such period as is specified in the certificate.
|
| (4)The driver of a taxi is exempt from the duties imposed
| by section 168 if--
|
| (a)an exemption certificate issued to the driver is in
| force with respect to the taxi, and
|
| (b)the prescribed notice of the exemption is exhibited on
| the taxi in the prescribed manner.
|
| The power to make regulations under paragraph (b) is
| exercisable by the Secretary of State.
|
| (5)In this section "licensing authority" means--
|
| (a)in relation to the area to which the Metropolitan
| Public Carriage Act 1869 applies, Transport for London;
|
| (b)in relation to any other area in England and Wales,
| the authority responsible for licensing taxis in that
| area.
| lhorie wrote:
| FWIW, Uber does offer an option called UberAssist[0], which
| _is_ available in San Francisco (where this woman is from). And
| as someone else pointed out, Uber sends emails to drivers
| periodically. What more can it do? Boot drivers after a
| discrimination incident? By then, it 's already too late.
|
| [0] https://www.uber.com/blog/los-angeles/introducing-
| uberassist...
| dillondoyle wrote:
| My Uber in Denver has Uber Pet. I thought I remembered seeing
| child seat in the past, maybe Ski too but I could be wrong.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| Guide dogs aren't pets. They are medical equipment.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| valuearb wrote:
| It's not the service animals that are the problem, is the
| "emotional support" animals, or more specifically, their
| owners.
| Bedon292 wrote:
| Emotional Support animals are not by default considered
| service animals by the ADA. (IANAL and State / Local laws may
| say different things.) They must be trained to perform at
| least one specific task in order to qualify as a service
| animal under the ADA. You are allowed to ask two specific
| questions about dogs: "Is the dog a service animal required
| because of a disability?" and "What work or task has the dog
| been trained to perform?" It seems like something that Uber
| could allow a user to input, and prevent their drivers from
| rejecting those users for the presence of the animal.
|
| Animals do always have to be under control of the owner
| though, so if one is not under control that is an acceptable
| reason to reject them.
|
| And I believe the latest guidance is that basically only dogs
| fall under the service animal category, so random other
| animals people use for emotional support would not qualify
| either. The exception seems to be miniature horses for
| specific limited cases.
|
| https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
| [deleted]
| kaylynb wrote:
| How do you tell if a dog is a service dog though? The ADA
| already allows excluding misbehaving service animals, which
| should cover a good portion of 'fraudulent emotional service
| animals' considering how well most people mistrain their
| animals.
|
| There are legitimate service animals for a wide variety of
| real conditions that a lay person could not be expected to
| consider. Dogs that can detect incoming seizures or
| problematic psychological states, and they could look very
| similar to an 'emotional support animal' but actually be a
| legitimate service animal.
| arenaninja wrote:
| I was out for breakfast for the first time since the pandemic
| started this weekend (I'm fully vaccinated now) and in walks
| a guy with a dog sporting a "Service Animal" sash that in
| tiny letters said "emotional support". I was paralyzed - I
| was traumatized by my interactions with dogs when I was a
| kid; where's my say in having untrained animals in my
| vicinity? This kind of shit needs to be ended but there
| should be NO issue with blind people with actual service
| animals receiving service anywhere
| jschwartzi wrote:
| Yeah my brother's wife will completely shut down and start
| screaming if a dog comes within 5 feet of her. Where she
| grew up in China dogs were wild animals that would
| viciously attack you if you got near them, so it's a pretty
| understandable reaction. So I'm not sure why you're getting
| downvoted here.
|
| Also having personally seen how poorly trained most
| peoples' dogs are I would be very uncomfortable having a
| random stranger's dog near me. A lot of the dogs I
| encounter on the street are neurotic wrecks incapable of
| passing without barking, leash pulling, or lunging.
| arenaninja wrote:
| I'm downvoted because it's an unpopular opinion in the US
| that people shouldn't force their pets on others who are
| uncomfortable interacting with them or just being around
| them and HN readership is largely US-centric. In my
| experience many recreational dog owners in the US are
| incredibly selfish people
| Bedon292 wrote:
| Legally an actual service animal must be trained. Emotional
| support, for a variety of reasons including things like
| PTSD and anxiety attacks, is a completely valid use of
| service animals. How do you know they were not trained?
|
| If they were misbehaving, that's reason for them to be
| rejected, training or not. If not, legally allergies and
| fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or
| refusing service to people using service animals. Though
| Uber should certainly attempt to pair the rider with a
| different driver first, if they have registered that
| allergy / fear ahead of time.
| arenaninja wrote:
| > Legally an actual service animal must be trained
|
| There's a distinction between trained service animals and
| emotional support animals. Both are support animals but
| the latter are largely untrained which is why airlines
| have moved to ban them. I have no issue whatsoever with
| trained service animals!
|
| I think there's a conversation to be had about dogs as
| vicious in nature but I have been laughed out of the room
| when I mention this to an in-person audience. But many
| USPS/UPS/FedEx and now Amazon delivery people are aware
| of this: untrained dogs are a danger
| LocalH wrote:
| >If not, legally allergies and fear of dogs are not valid
| reasons for denying access or refusing service to people
| using service animals.
|
| This should change. Especially on the allergy front.
| Forcing someone to suffer an allergic reaction because a
| customer has a service dog is immoral.
| morelisp wrote:
| All 15 of your employees have medically serious dog
| allergies?
| LocalH wrote:
| If a small business owner happened to be that unlucky,
| how would you propose it be dealt with? If I were such a
| business owner, I would honestly attempt to arrange the
| customer be handled by a competitor, if it was legit a
| situation where everyone at my company happened to be
| seriously allergic to dogs.
| morelisp wrote:
| I think that business owner should realize by employee 12
| or 13 they probably need to diversify a bit in order to
| stay legally compliant. It is not a complicated or
| difficult thing to handle.
| Bedon292 wrote:
| I am not taking a stance on the law itself, but it is
| what the current law is. And has been in place for at
| least a decade in its current form. If it is a serious
| issue, then people should definitely work to change the
| law.
|
| But, unless they are the only one available or something,
| there is nothing in the law saying that specific employee
| has to keep providing service. The company should make a
| best effort to remove that employee from contact, without
| impacting the service of the customer.
| mcguire wrote:
| Refusing to serve someone because they are blind is also
| immoral.
|
| I'll let you decide who has the better case.
| eloisant wrote:
| The article is specifically about a blind person, so clearly
| service animals are not well accepted by many Uber drivers.
| akiselev wrote:
| Which is a problem for legislators. Taxi drivers should not
| be the arbiters of whether an animal is a true support animal
| or not.
| adoxyz wrote:
| 100% agree. "emotional support" animals are basically a free
| pass for shitty people to take advantage of the system and
| take their non-trained, horribly mannered animals with them
| wherever they want, which sucks for people that have actual
| need for emotional support and service animals.
| kube-system wrote:
| I don't think Uber/Lyft wants to take the responsibility of ADA
| compliance, because that is implying that their drivers are
| employees.
| CPLX wrote:
| Right. And I don't want to continue to engage in the
| ludicrous bad faith argument that I'm not hiring Uber when I
| used the app to hire an Uber.
| julienb_sea wrote:
| What is the basis by which you are claiming ADA compliance
| implies their drivers are employees? Providing usable service
| for ADA customers can and should be accomplished regardless
| of Uber/Lyft's driver contracting model.
| kube-system wrote:
| Employee classification is dependent on the amount of
| control that a company has over the worker. Uber has
| consistently argued that they have minimal influence over
| driver behavior, in attempts to keep their status quo on
| their workers' current classification, and avoid the costs
| associated with having employees.
|
| In this case, they again made these claims.
|
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/file/805/6/8056-Award%20in%20Ir
| v...
|
| The more 'hands-off' that Uber can assert that they are
| with their drivers, the better for their argument. They
| want to be 100% a middleman and 0% anything else.
| Ultimately, I think they'll fail, but for now, that's their
| strategy.
| vkou wrote:
| The ADA does not give compliance exemptions to contractors
| employed by a company.
|
| Uber doesn't want their drivers classified as employees
| because it would cost them a lot of money in benefits and
| possibly back-pay.
| Rule35 wrote:
| And the drivers don't want to be employees or they'd be
| stuck driving for one company with a set shift.
|
| We need to fix contracting which means fixing access to
| affordable (ie, the same actual cost the company would pay)
| medical. The problem for Uber drivers is that the money
| they make can't pay for coverage because companies get
| highly discounted rates.
| kube-system wrote:
| Employers are not legally required to set hours for their
| employees.
| dnautics wrote:
| Taxis don't have their drivers as employees, and that sort of
| dispatch mechanism is exactly how they handle it.
| kube-system wrote:
| There's also a lot of taxi companies who are being sued for
| misclassification, so I don't really think their actions
| hold much value as a model for legal compliance.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Uber is at least aware of its responsibilities.
|
| When I drove for Uber, we received email messages every
| couple of months reminding us of the rules concerning service
| animals and people who need physical assistance getting in
| and out of the car.
|
| I seem to recall that if you had the right kind of car you
| could mark yourself available for wheelchairs and other
| things. I was forever picking up people with walkers and
| helping them in and out, though I know some drivers never
| ever wanted to touch a passenger unless they were dead drunk
| and had to be dragged out of the car and deposited on the
| front lawn of the destination address. (Been there, done
| that.)
|
| Maybe it's regional. Everything about Uber seems to be.
| paulcole wrote:
| > The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in
| their app
|
| No. The real problem is that a person with a disability was
| denied service in violation of the ADA.
|
| There's no setting in the app that prevents a driver from
| saying (as they should), "Get in."
| spuz wrote:
| Exactly. As the article says:
|
| > In 2014, The National Federation of the Blind in the US
| sued the ride-sharing app over guide-dog regulations.
|
| > The case was settled in 2017 when Uber agreed to ensure its
| drivers knew they were legally obliged to provide service to
| people with guide dogs.
|
| So Uber have clearly failed to train their drivers to treat
| disabled passengers in the right way. There are definitely
| lots of problems that could be solved with a better UI but
| this isn't one of them.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| A blind woman who was refused rides on 14 occasions - did this
| happen only to her? Or is it a broaded problem ... I cannot
| imagine she would be the only blind person taking an uber ...
| shariqm wrote:
| Yeah, this isn't the first time:
| https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-o...
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| Maybe not everyone is brave enough to sue giants? Look at the
| lawyers share size.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Yeah, but most of that goes to...anyone?
|
| Bueller?
|
| THE LAWYERS!
|
| _> She was awarded $324,000 in damages and_ more than $800,000
| in attorney fees and court costs, _according to the arbitrator 's
| award posted online by her attorneys._
|
| That's from the CNN variant of the story.
|
| To be fair, they likely earned it, in this case. It seems to have
| taken a while.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/business/uber-blind-passenger...
| akiselev wrote:
| The awards were separate, one for damages and another for
| services rendered by her legal team. She could have won the
| damages and received nothing for the rest, in which case she
| would be net negative 500k or so.
|
| It doesn't look like an ambulance chaser case where the she
| agreed to give the lawyers 2/3 of the damages. Does go to show
| you how crazy expensive real litigation is.
|
| From the document her team posted:
|
| _> She is awarded the relief requested in her Post-Hearing
| Brief, including her damages in the amount of $324,000 plus
| attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs in the amount of
| $805,313.45 which, though high, reflects the high quality of
| legal work done in this case. _
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| She ended up making money.
|
| And Uber needs to give a bit more training to their drivers
| about ADA.
|
| 1.1M is under-the-couch-cushions for Uber, but the publicity
| cost them a lot more.
| maxharris wrote:
| I'd like to go out on a limb and say that I don't agree with the
| ADA. I don't think any private person or organization should be
| compelled to provide facilities or services for anyone else,
| regardless of what their need is.
|
| I have no animus toward people with disabilities - I'm just
| saying that no one should be forced to help anyone else. If you
| want to do something for someone else's benefit, you should be
| free to do so, at your own expense. When you compel others to do
| something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing
| cannot be a noble act. No good ultimately comes from that which
| is not freely chosen.
|
| When you help a friend, you are involved in his life. Because
| you're _there_ , you get the reward of achieving a personal value
| of your own. You get feedback about how your acts are impacting
| his life, which helps you be a better friend.
|
| When you try to coerce a group, you have no knowledge of the
| actual impact your rule actually has on anyone. And because
| you're not in the loop, it takes a great deal longer to change
| your rules. This ends up hurting more people than you help.
|
| EDIT: downvoting me won't change my mind, but it will make me try
| even harder to spread the above message
| CJefferson wrote:
| No-one is being "forced to help". They are providing a paid
| service, and all times you pay someone to do something in the
| U.S., there are legal requirements on the seller and the buyer.
| joombaga wrote:
| > When you try to coerce a group, you have no knowledge of the
| actual impact your rule actually has on anyone. And because
| you're not in the loop, it takes a great deal longer to change
| your rules.
|
| > This ends up hurting more people than you help.
|
| These 2 assertions seem to be at odds. If you can't see the
| impact of coercing a group to help, how did you make the
| determination that it hurts more people than it helps?
|
| If your objection is moral, then the coercion is the issue and
| it doesn't matter if society benefits (by whatever metric one
| uses, e.g. "wellbeing"). If it _can_ be demonstrated that
| compelling Uber drivers to pick up passengers with disabilities
| benefits those passengers more than it hurts the drivers, would
| that change your mind? Or do you believe there's no possible
| way for compelling those drivers to be more beneficial than
| detrimental at a societal level?
| neom wrote:
| How would you think about the best way to provide services to
| members of our society that are less able than others?
| orf wrote:
| > When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that
| you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act
|
| > No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely
| chosen.
|
| > You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life,
| which helps you be a better friend.
|
| > This ends up hurting more people than you help.
|
| What an absolutely mind numblingly self centered and brain-dead
| take.
|
| It's got nothing to do with the "noble act" or other such
| nonsense. They are there so that people with disabilities don't
| end up living a second class existence, locked out of large
| parts of modern life, because it is not economically sensible
| to add disabled access to your building or service for the very
| small percentage of potential customers who need it.
| maxharris wrote:
| Why do you assume that the problem of a second-class
| existence for some is avoidable given the current state of
| the art in science, technology and medicine?
|
| You can put wheelchair ramps on every building and have zero
| impact on the number of people that can walk that will date
| someone in a wheelchair, or the number of non-hearing-
| impaired people that will even be friends with a deaf person.
| This is because people often meet and relate to one another
| through their experiences and shared interests.
|
| Frankly, the only way those situations can change is through
| technology. As we come up with ways of repairing spinal cord
| injuries, restoring hearing and sight, etc., many people will
| have ways of breaking through the very real barriers I'm
| speaking of here. Wouldn't it be better to spend more of the
| money that goes into ramps and the like on research instead?
|
| If people are left free to decide what to do with their own
| resources, I argue that ultimately more resources will go
| into advancing science and technology, with the ultimate
| effect of creating a society where fewer people suffer a
| second-class existence. Take the existence of Neuralink as a
| practical example of this: it's a private company whose first
| users will be paraplegic people, and people suffering from
| strokes and Parkinson's disease.
| orf wrote:
| You're conflating a number of different points and mixing
| it together with a dash of futurism rubbish.
|
| Handicapped people need access to goods and services right
| now. Services like banks, restaurants, public buildings.
| Laws and regulations that ensure they have access to those
| goods and services is not holding back "science and
| technology".
|
| In some vague future where we've cured all disabilities
| then sure, I agree these laws are probably not needed
| anymore. However, until then...
| maxharris wrote:
| I don't think you understand the impact that government
| controls have on the development of science and
| technology. (Just look at the decades of failure in the
| public space program and compare it against the progress
| made by private companies in the last decade!)
|
| Nor are you acknowledging the fact that resources are
| finite for any a single instant in time. Every dollar you
| take from someone in taxes is a dollar they are not free
| to put toward their own values. Even more importantly,
| they are no longer free to guide that money with the
| information they uniquely have.
|
| If you want meaningful change, you have to think about
| this at an individual level. After all, it is individuals
| who think, make scientific discoveries, and make business
| decisions. Groups don't think.
| neom wrote:
| I'm genuinely curious; is your position that there should
| be zero societal consideration for those less able than
| others?
| maxharris wrote:
| No. Wherever the property in question is publicly owned,
| such as a courtroom or public road, reasonable
| accommodations must be made.
|
| The views I have shared apply only in the case of private
| property. On my view, if something is yours, it is yours
| alone to manage or dispose of so long as you do not
| interfere with the individual rights of others.
| orf wrote:
| Ignoring the fact that it's not a tax that goes to the
| government, the flaw in your argument is assuming that
| the $1000 Subway now doesn't have to spend ensuring
| disabled access to a store will somehow end up funding
| ground-breaking disability research. I'm not sure how you
| came to that conclusion.
|
| You can attack a problem in multiple ways, it's not
| mutually exclusive. You can simultaneously fund research
| into curing disabilities _at the same time_ as ensuring
| people with disabilities have equal access. Which is what
| we are doing now.
|
| Trying to make the argument that hand-wavey "resources"
| are being somehow diverted away from disability research
| because private businesses need to accomodate disabled
| people sounds rather silly. Almost as silly as arguing
| that these unthinking groups (shall we call them
| companies?) would invest any of the money they would save
| by not ensuring equal access in anything related to
| disability research.
|
| When it comes to some forms of meaningful change at a
| group level then focusing on the individual is not a
| great tactic. You can spend an hour individually
| explaining to every person in a country why smoking is
| bad for them but that won't have nearly as much impact on
| smoking rates as banning cigarette adverts.
| valuearb wrote:
| I have no problem with the government paying for ADA
| accommodations, and all of us sharing in the tax burden for
| them. Why should their costs be forced on a narrow group of
| businesses in unequal ways?
| teraflop wrote:
| If some business models have a harder time providing equal
| accommodations to disabled people than others, why is it
| "unequal" for those business models to pay a
| correspondingly larger cost? Seems like a pretty reasonable
| negative incentive to me.
| shagie wrote:
| This is how it works for other companies... though not the
| government paying for ADA.
|
| Taxi companies have vehicles equipped for wheelchairs and
| other disabilities. They tend to be unprofitable to operate
| - but they have them. The reduction or loss of a profit on
| those fares is made up for by the taxi company, as a whole,
| subsidizing it from the increased prices for the rest of
| the fares.
|
| It isn't necessary for this to be a government thing. It is
| simply "the company needs to increase the cost of its
| service so that what it offers is accessible to everyone."
|
| As this applies to everyone in the sector the same (taxis,
| uber, Lyft, etc...) it isn't impacting a narrow group of
| businesses in unequal ways. This applies to restaurants,
| retail businesses, etc...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| It does benefits bigger organizations that have more of
| an ability to absorb higher costs than small businesses
| and startups, just like any other regulatory burden.
| kube-system wrote:
| If you don't like the solution to the problem, do you have a
| better solution? Or do you not think the problem is worth
| solving?
|
| So far, however, places with these types of regulations are
| still prosperous and have significantly better lives for those
| who are disabled. The real-world results speak for themselves.
| flowerlad wrote:
| This is not about "helping". This is about illegal
| discrimination. When you open a service to the public then you
| can't refuse it to someone on the basis of their disability.
| (Or race, or gender, or sexual orientation.)
| joombaga wrote:
| Right, but those laws are in place to help those who would be
| refused service on those bases. It's reasonable to question
| if those laws (e.g. in the context of Uber and people with
| disabilities) are truly a societal benefit, and if that
| benefit is worth the moral cost of legal coercion.
| CJefferson wrote:
| So, you want to argue it is important people have the right
| to lie to blind people and dump them in the middle of
| nowhere?
| joombaga wrote:
| No. I don't believe it is important that people have the
| right to lie to blind people and dump them in the middle
| of nowhere.
| orthecreedence wrote:
| The fact that the laws exist in the first place seems to
| answer that line of questioning already.
| joombaga wrote:
| Are you implying that the existence of any given law is
| indication of its societal benefits? It doesn't seem
| difficult to find a counterexample.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| If disability access is not legally required, many businesses
| just won't bother. Economically, it often doesn't make sense to
| spend money to accommodate a small percentage of your potential
| customer base. Even if it does make sense, many people just
| don't bother, often through simple ignorance.
|
| This means that, without legally required obligations, disabled
| people become second class citizens. The places they can go and
| the businesses they can patronize are determined entirely on
| the whims of other people. This means that they require more
| help from caregivers for basic day to day functioning, and can
| prevent them from making their own contributions to society.
|
| Your argument is saying that the desires of businesses are more
| important then the ability of disabled people to participate in
| society. It is a zero sum game. And you're free to have your
| own opinion on the matter, but don't be surprised when people
| consider your stance to be heartless.
| Karunamon wrote:
| On pure principle I kind of agree, but the reason that the ADA
| exists is because people with disabilities that require things
| like ramps and big bathroom stalls with grab bars are not a
| significant enough market segment to pressure businesses to
| offer them; the end result of which is that accommodations
| would not exist otherwise.
|
| This is the necessary kind of regulation that shores up a hole
| that free markets wouldn't solve on their own. Accommodating
| disabilities isn't profitable.
| teraflop wrote:
| > When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that
| you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act. No good
| ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen.
|
| I couldn't care less about whether the ADA increases or
| decreases the number of "noble acts" that happen every day. I
| care about its actual effects on people's lives. And it has
| demonstrably done a lot of good for a lot of people, despite
| your assertion that such a thing is unthinkable.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| It was downvoted below, but reposting here because this is
| something that I think should be seen as it comes up often:
|
| >> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities
| Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind
| person can go."
|
| > Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about
| business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I
| were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there
| was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences
| with dogs and being near one sends me into panic.
|
| You should take that into consideration before taking on a job
| that might require you to drive around dogs. As a country we
| decided long time ago, that people who require seeing-eye dogs
| shouldn't be subjected to substandard treatment by society - as
| was the case before the law protected the visually impaired.
|
| If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that
| involves having to interact with dogs.
| shotta wrote:
| Wouldn't someone with a severe allergy to dogs also be covered
| under ADA?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Wouldn't someone with a severe allergy to dogs also be
| covered under ADA?
|
| Sure, which clearly matters of Uber drivers are employees,
| but less so if they are independent service providers.
| teraflop wrote:
| If a company has fewer than 15 employees, it's exempt from
| the ADA's requirements.
|
| If it has 15 employees or more, then the law assumes that
| it's reasonable for the company to provide service (e.g. by
| reassigning a non-allergic employee to work with a customer
| who has a service dog) except where it would demonstrably
| create an undue hardship.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Then it is not clear to me why a driver that uses the Uber
| app to find passengers, who is not an Uber employee, would
| not be allowed to refuse a service animal.
| unionpivo wrote:
| > Then it is not clear to me why a driver that uses the
| Uber app to find passengers, who is not an Uber employee,
| would not be allowed to refuse a service animal.
|
| Uber did try what you said as a defense, and they lost,
| so it seem courts think that because Uber is a huge
| company, with much more than 15 people, it's on them to
| find a way to be compliant with ADA.
|
| Weather or not drivers are subcontractors or not doesn't
| even come to play.
|
| Because lets face it. If they didn't thats such a huge
| hole, that in a lot of cases corporations would be able
| to structure themselves in a way that they could avoid
| that.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The question is if this court considers Uber responsible
| because the driver is an employee, then how is the driver
| not an employee for all other purposes? Other courts have
| maintained the drivers are not employees. And usually,
| courts stay consistent unless over ruled by superior
| courts.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Uber is company with over 15 employees. As such it must
| follow the law. So in the end it has to find some driver
| who is willing to transport customer. But on other hand
| all drivers as independent contractors can refuse. It's
| catch-22. But court can reasonably expect Uber being able
| to pay enough for someone to take the job...
| [deleted]
| caddemon wrote:
| If that's true then the narrative above about how "people
| with dog allergies shouldn't be allowed to drive for Uber"
| is crap. Service dogs are much rarer than Uber drivers
| without allergies. There's no reason Uber can't accommodate
| both customers with service animals and drivers with
| legitimate reasons to avoid certain service animals.
|
| Some drivers may lie, but if you require even a simple
| doctor's note I think that would deter a lot of people from
| bothering, given the rarity of encountering a service dog
| request.
| m11a wrote:
| > I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one
| sends me into panic.
|
| I can only speak for myself, but I used to be scared of most
| dogs _except_ guide dogs. Guide dogs always seemed to have a
| calming effect on me (for some reason).
| cortesoft wrote:
| > what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by
| dogs?
|
| Yeah, being traumatized doesn't let you break the law.
| Otherwise, people could say "I am traumatized by black people!"
| or "I am traumatized by gay people!"
| caddemon wrote:
| I get enforcement is basically impossible on this/people
| throw around the word "traumatized" way too much - but I knew
| a girl who was attacked by a dog as a child and would have
| panic attacks if a large dog got anywhere near her. I'm not
| sure if you've ever seen a real panic attack but these are
| legitimate physical symptoms that can be very difficult to
| control, and would be extremely non-ideal to occur while
| driving.
|
| If you want to argue that this condition should mean she
| can't be an Uber driver I can see your point, but the
| comparison to race or sexual orientation is pretty absurd.
| I'm not aware of anyone who has panic attacks when seeing a
| human of another race or orientation.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| > If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job
| that involves having to interact with dogs.
|
| Following the above, wouldn't this be any job that requires
| interacting with other people? So basically any job?
| jakeva wrote:
| I can't speak for all jobs, but working as a software
| developer I have never been forced to interact with a dog
| Groxx wrote:
| If you ever go to an office, you're in the same boat. ADA
| support dogs are allowed in offices as well.
| bentcorner wrote:
| Realistically seeing-eye dogs are not that common and plenty
| of jobs allow you to distance yourself from any potential
| dogs you might run into.
|
| There's not too many jobs where a dog might end up right
| behind you for extended periods of time in an enclosed space.
| lupire wrote:
| The ADA applies to workers too. A dog allergy is a disability.
| Miner49er wrote:
| It has been ruled that fear of dogs or allergies to dogs is
| not sufficient reason to deny service to someone with a
| service dog.
|
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
| anonymousab wrote:
| I think a deathly allergy would qualify as a 'legitimate
| safety requirement'. There are also situations in which the
| ADA considers an allergy itself to be a disability, though
| the given examples are usually around food allergies.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| Such a person would not be able to drive a taxi/uber
| regardless of accommodations. I used to have a severe cat
| allergy that resulted in an asthma attack when exposed
| to, for instance, a colleague covered in cat hair. Their
| cat was in another city at the time.
| pvarangot wrote:
| I don't think a deadly allergy to dogs exists as a
| condition on its own, you would probably also have a
| whole lot of terrible respiratory issues when exposed to
| a lot of other allergens. Someone with a deadly allergy
| to dogs will probably already require accommodations on
| the job that shield them from close interaction with
| people on its entirety.
| Miner49er wrote:
| I don't see that language anywhere except for the case of
| miniature horses?
| shagie wrote:
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
|
| > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for
| denying access or refusing service to people using service
| animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a
| person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same
| room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a
| homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by
| assigning them, if possible, to different locations within
| the room or different rooms in the facility.
|
| If the person has a dog allergy, Uber should make the
| appropriate accommodations (possibly by allowing them to
| assign another driver to the fare) - however, they cannot
| refuse the fare.
| lolinder wrote:
| This. It would be absurdly easy for Uber to allow riders to
| specify "I have a service animal" and drivers to specify "I
| have a dog allergy" (probably with a requirement to provide
| a doctor's note to avoid abuse). You simply don't pair
| those riders with those drivers.
| Kharvok wrote:
| This is specifically addressed in updated guidance from 2010.
|
| "Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying
| access or refusing service to people using service animals.
| When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who
| uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or
| facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless
| shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them,
| if possible, to different locations within the room or
| different rooms in the facility."
| magsnus wrote:
| How on earth does this apply to cars?
| orthecreedence wrote:
| Put up a divider. Or update the app's UX: "[ ] I'm blind
| and have a service dog."
| magsnus wrote:
| Considering how little Uber drivers makes per drive (and
| they are independent contractors and not workers in most
| places) a simple divider would probably come close to the
| "unreasonable cost" in the ADA. It is not that I don't
| empathize with disabled people but ADA as it seems to be
| written and all the "support animals" these days would
| probably drive many small business to bankrupcy.
|
| In Sweden "our ADA" only applies to lead-dogs and they
| have a special "blanket" and most people that want to
| bring their dogs into restaurants and hotels don't have
| licensed dogs. But still, if all the "dog rooms" are
| taken then the deep cleaning required is a pretty big
| cost to bear and I have seen customers turn in the door
| when there was a dog in the restaurant.
|
| So it is not a simple issue and I sympathize with the
| small independent contractors. Uber, not so much.
| hwillis wrote:
| > and all the "support animals" these days would probably
| drive many small business to bankrupcy.
|
| Those are not covered by the ADA:
| https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
|
| >Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or
| companion animals considered service animals under the
| ADA?
|
| > A. No. These terms are used to describe animals that
| provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they
| have not been trained to perform a specific job or task,
| they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.
| However, some State or local governments have laws that
| allow people to take emotional support animals into
| public places. You may check with your State and local
| government agencies to find out about these laws.
| cortesoft wrote:
| "A customer is not required to indicate that he or she
| will be traveling with a service animal when calling to
| request a ride."
|
| https://www.thetransportationalliance.org/news/adanotice.
| pdf
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| How does this change anything?
|
| If someone has a problem with dogs, or anything else, then
| they are not qualified to perform a job that requires
| interacting with dogs, or whatever their particular
| disability involves.
|
| They aren't being denied a right to work out of
| discrimination or prejudice. They simply can't do that job.
|
| Here's the difference between that and prejudicial
| discrimination:
|
| If someone does have either an allergy or tramatic stress
| issue with dogs, or whatever else, but for some reason they
| really want to do this particular job anyway, they still can.
| IF they want to deal with their problem theirself somehow,
| with allergy meds or meditation or plain iron will or
| whatever, as long as they can and do the job properly, no one
| will prevent them.
|
| Discrimination & prejudice is I don't care how good you might
| be at the job, you still aren't allowed to do it (or are
| significantly and artificially disadvantaged) simply because
| you're female or black etc.
|
| The drivers just don't like that the dogs mess up their cars
| and the smell displeases the next customer and affects their
| rating and tips.
|
| The answer to that is tough shit. Don't take a job serving
| the public if you only like some people and not others.
|
| This is the general store mysteriously always being out of
| flour or beans for the black family. Your freedom not to
| interact with people you don't like and who aren't violent or
| otherwise dangerous, comes only in the form that you are free
| not to operate or work for a business that serves the public.
| Go be a comic book artist or accountant or something where
| you don't have to let any filthy dogs into your house as part
| of your job.
| core-questions wrote:
| > Don't take a job serving the public if you only like some
| people and not others.
|
| Seems like this logic doesn't apply to payment processors,
| web hosts, and anyone else who doesn't want to deal with
| free speech that they find offensive. Bake the cake, right?
| John23832 wrote:
| Payment processors, webhosts, etc (I assume you're
| alluding a lot of the alt-right sights being removed from
| those platforms) have in practice refused to serve
| customers that expose them to legal culpability. There's
| a clear difference.
|
| Yes. Bake the cake. The only legal culpability is to NOT
| do so.
| core-questions wrote:
| What legal culpability do they have accepting payments
| for organizations that run websites that allow people to
| exercise their constitutionally protected rights to free
| speech?
| m11a wrote:
| A lot of platforms have arbitrary requirements of who
| they'll serve or won't serve. Even those with fixed rules
| can enforce against anyone, and then just ignore your
| support tickets when you try to appeal.
|
| I guess the difference in this case is targeting someone
| due to a disability/protected characteristic, compared to
| some other reason. One fair thing might be Uber
| subsidising rides of disabled people with guide dogs (in
| the sense that it pays drivers a bit more to account for
| cleanup costs etc). I dunno if they can be _expected_ to
| do this, but such costs probably won 't show up on their
| bottom line and the PR of doing that alone would probably
| make up for any costs.
| core-questions wrote:
| > disability/protected characteristic
|
| which is precisely why White people need the same legal
| protections every other group has under the Civil Rights
| Act.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| The anti-discrimination logic applies very specifically
| to protected classes, and only protected classes. So yes
| indeed bake that cake.
| spazrunaway wrote:
| What a mistake this all was.
| cwhiz wrote:
| >If someone has a problem with dogs, or anything else, then
| they are not qualified to perform a job that requires
| interacting with dogs, or whatever their particular
| disability involves.
|
| An allergic reaction is not just a "problem with dogs." An
| allergy to dog hair is no more or less important than any
| other disability. The law requires reasonable attempts to
| accommodate the individual with a service animal, and the
| individual with an allergy. In the case of Uber or Lyft, it
| seems relatively trivial (to me) to classify drivers with
| allergies, riders with guide dogs, and to prevent those two
| groups from connecting for a ride.
|
| The real problem here is that Uber/Lyft don't want to take
| any action that would further blur the line between
| employee and contractor.
| cwhiz wrote:
| Ah a mere 0.006% of their 2020 revenue. I am sure that Uber has
| learned their lesson.
| Miner49er wrote:
| Unless Uber fixes this, it seems like a way to get some money if
| you have a disability.
|
| 1) Train or buy a service dog for your disability.
|
| 2) Request an Uber with your service dog, record what happens
| when the driver shows up. Assuming Uber doesn't fix this, many
| drivers will probably deny service.
|
| 3) Repeat a couple dozen times.
|
| 4) Contact a lawyer
|
| 5) Profit?
| Ansil849 wrote:
| This is an extremely callous comment.
|
| Discrimination happens regularly to those with disabilities
| without needing to go out of their way to concoct such a
| scenario - it happens organically every day, due to people like
| that Uber driver mentioned ("One driver allegedly cut her trip
| short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her
| destination.") being trash.
| Miner49er wrote:
| Depends on the disability, I think. I have a disability per
| the ADA, and have considered getting a service dog. But me
| not being able to take my service dog would be nothing but an
| inconvenience, whereas for someone blind it is obviously much
| worse then that.
|
| I don't see how I'm being callous, I think people doing this
| would force Uber to implement a fix, which is good for people
| with disabilities. Uber needs to be punished for this until
| it is fixed.
| benatkin wrote:
| > It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not
| liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of
| contractors rather than employees.
|
| I feel like money would be better spent raising awareness of
| service dogs and dealing with fraudulent (they do call it fraud,
| right?) service dogs than fining Uber.
| igneo676 wrote:
| In practice, I'm not sure there's anything that can be done
| about service dog misrepresentation.
|
| When I was trained in restaurants to deal with (potential)
| service dogs, the extent to which I was allowed to ask any
| questions was "Is that a service dog?". As long as the answer
| was "Yes", I was to leave them alone. No questions asked.
| Anything else supposedly opened you to litigation
|
| Edit: Looks like there's a separate thread with additional ADA
| info. Tl;dr - nothing you can do to stop people misrepresenting
| their dogs as service animals.
| [deleted]
| mlyle wrote:
| Note that Uber wasn't _fined_. They were ordered to pay her
| attorney costs (which are high in part because Uber complicated
| the litigation) and damages to her.
| [deleted]
| hartator wrote:
| Yes, makes no sense that anyone can register their pet as
| emotional support.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The ADA does not require any registration of any service
| animal. Everyone is expected to accept the service animal's
| owner claim that the service animal is a service animal
| without proof.
| mlyle wrote:
| If someone shows up with something that couldn't legally be
| a service animal (e.g. a bunny) or cannot respond
| adequately as to how the dog has been trained to perform a
| specific task, then they may have grounds to refuse to
| admit the dog.
|
| https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
|
| Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion
| animals considered service animals under the ADA? A. No.
| These terms are used to describe animals that provide
| comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not
| been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not
| qualify as service animals under the ADA. However, some
| State or local governments have laws that allow people to
| take emotional support animals into public places. You may
| check with your State and local government agencies to find
| out about these laws.
|
| Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to
| determine if a dog is a service animal? A. In situations
| where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal,
| staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a
| service animal required because of a disability? and _(2)
| what work or task has the dog been trained to perform_?
| Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the
| dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire
| about the nature of the person 's disability.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I'm familiar with those guidelines, but effectively,
| anyone can say anything, and the last sentence shows that
| you basically have to take their word for it (unless you
| want to risk getting involved in a costly legal matter).
| I know you don't have to take lizards as service animals,
| but you do basically have to take chihuahuas or
| Pomeranians or pit bulls or Rottweilers or whatever as
| service dogs, and maybe miniature horses.
|
| > Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for
| the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or
| inquire about the nature of the person's disability.
|
| Miniature horses here:
|
| https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
| mlyle wrote:
| First section of your link:
|
| > Beginning on March 15, 2011, only dogs are recognized
| as service animals under titles II and III of the ADA
|
| And thus now miniature horses are under a much more
| strict regulatory regime.
| [deleted]
| Pfhreak wrote:
| Yes, you do have to take their word for it. If the dog is
| disruptive (e.g. barking or not housetrained), you can
| ask them to leave. The dog must be under control by the
| owner at all times. Dogs must (generally) remain on the
| floor or on the owner (and not in a shopping cart).
| Seating, food, drink, and other amenities are for the
| person, not the dog.
|
| In practice, asking these two questions and understanding
| the limits of where you can intervene is sufficient in
| 99% of cases.
|
| > you do basically have to take chihuahuas or Pomeranians
| or pit bulls or Rottweilers or whatever as service dogs
|
| Why is this a problem? Different breeds have different
| characteristics, and there are a variety of reasons to
| have a service dog -- from PTSD to blindness to diabetes.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >In practice, asking these two questions and
| understanding the limits of where you can intervene is
| sufficient in 99% of cases.
|
| Hah, try it at a hotel that charges pet cleaning fees. Or
| limits the number of animals in a room. It's 99%
| sufficient at Costco, because the cost is low of not
| getting in. When you're looking at shelling out money for
| a pet fee or not having to pay for pet boarding or pet
| sitters at home, suddenly 10%+ of the population has
| service animals.
|
| >Why is this a problem? Different breeds have different
| characteristics, and there are a variety of reasons to
| have a service dog -- from PTSD to blindness to diabetes.
|
| It's not a problem necessarily, but you can sort of tell
| who is and isn't lying about service animals, at least by
| the discrepancy in total numbers and which ones are
| coming in with the badges and vests (indicating they
| don't know about actual ADA laws).
| Pfhreak wrote:
| Amortize the costs of the liars across the base cost of
| the room. It's really not _that_ many people who will lie
| about it.
|
| Some folks end up paying a little more on average and
| some people cheat and pay a little less, but the folks
| who need service animal accommodations don't get accosted
| by desk clerks. Sounds like a win to me.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Many hotels and motels are small businesses (usually
| franchisees) that are low margin, low volume, they can't
| just eat the costs, which are also not equal the price of
| the room rate.
|
| A disruptive pet can cause you to have to refund multiple
| other rooms, and potential loss of future business too. A
| disruptive pet can cause physical damage to the room far
| in excess of the room rate. We once had a pet ruin the
| carpet so bad the room was not able to be sold for weeks,
| even after multiple carpet shampoos.
|
| And you also can't go after the hotel guests to recoup
| costs because the legal fees are hefty and the
| probability of winning the case, the defendants having
| money, and actually paying the money are all very low.
|
| Obviously all of this is true for disruptive people too,
| it's just that pets add another risk. Personally, after
| what I've seen, I would pay extra to be able to stay at a
| hotel that could guarantee it never had any pets stay.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| Don't allow pets? Service animals are not pets. And
| service animals can be removed from a business for being
| disruptive.
|
| > they can't just eat the costs, which are also not equal
| the price of the room rate
|
| Amortize the costs does not mean eat the costs, it means
| bake them into the base rate.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I meant any animals, it's a personal preference. I know
| how well hotel rooms get cleaned, and I'd rather take my
| chances with rooms that haven't had animals.
|
| It's also not that simple for smaller business to
| amortize the costs since the pricing has to be
| competitive with larger businesses that can amortize over
| more rooms, so a lot of times, the business does have to
| eat it. It's also a very unpredictable cost with high
| variance.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| > (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a
| disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been
| trained to perform?
|
| I worked at a Costco for a few years, these two questions
| were drilled into us over and over and over and over.
| People tried to bring dogs into Costco all the time, and
| we'd ask these two (and only these two) questions.
| Occasionally, some new employee or someone who was grumpy
| would go off script and it was considered a very serious
| issue.
|
| The folks with service animals knew the drill, would
| answer these questions quickly and succinctly. The ones
| without service animals would (sometimes) get extremely
| agitated about them.
|
| It's really tough, because so many people are
| inconsiderately trying to pretend their animals are
| service animals, which makes life for the folks who
| require the assistance of a service animal much, much
| more complicated. If you've ever considered "just
| ordering a service dog vest online", please reconsider.
| mlyle wrote:
| Gah. Humans are so annoying sometimes, aren't they?
|
| Did the legally allowed questions allow you to exclude
| the dog very often, or did you pretty much have to
| concede the matter most of the time?
| Pfhreak wrote:
| I never really tried to exclude dogs. Sometimes folks
| would say, "Oh, no, this isn't a service dog." and we'd
| ask them to not bring the animal inside.
|
| If someone said yes, and explained a task, then let them
| through. I'd rather allow an animal that wasn't actually
| a service dog than disallow one that was.
|
| If a dog becomes disruptive, you can ask its owner to
| leave.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >Did the legally allowed questions allow you to exclude
| the dog very often, or did you pretty much have to
| concede the matter most of the time?
|
| At my businesses, the instruction is to concede as I
| don't want to get involved in a costly legal fight. I
| don't see anyway for the business to come out ahead
| unless you have a recording and solid evidence of the
| person lying.
|
| I don't imagine it's any different for Costco. If
| anything, it's worse since they have deeper pockets to go
| after for people looking for a fight.
| [deleted]
| mlyle wrote:
| Emotional support animals are not legally service animals and
| there is no grant of access to places of public
| accommodation, etc.
| adoxyz wrote:
| Emotional support animal =/= service dog.
|
| Service dogs are specially trained for a job and cost upwards
| of $25-30k to train and maintain their training.
|
| Emotional support animals don't require any training and
| don't have nearly as many rights as a proper service dog.
| mlyle wrote:
| Note that someone disabled can train the service dog
| themselves, though-- there's no certification, requirement
| of specific breed, etc.
| fastball wrote:
| Yes but you also don't have to prove that your dog is the
| latter, so...
| adoxyz wrote:
| Many states have started implementing laws against
| falsely claiming service dogs.
|
| https://www.animallaw.info/content/fraudulent-service-
| dogs
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I don't see how an unenforceable law would help deter
| people who want to claim a non service animal as a
| service animal. As mlyle notes above, there is no
| formalized certification or training process required by
| ADA, so anyone can claim they have PTSD and they trained
| their dog to be a service animal to help them with their
| PTSD. What is anyone going to be able to do about that?
| [deleted]
| xahrepap wrote:
| My understanding isn't that they're not actually
| "registering" anything. But rather just putting a piece of
| cloth they bought on amazon on their animal they and claiming
| it to be so.
|
| They're abusing a part of the law most people don't
| understand (and most companies don't want to add to the drama
| of even if they do). IANAL, but it was explained to me that
| you cannot ask basically anything about service animals,
| other than one thing: "What is your service animal trained to
| do?". Apparently, service animals are supposed to be trained
| to do one specific task for their owner. Otherwise, they're
| not actually service animals. Allowing that question allows
| companies to verify that the animal is actually a service
| animal... without offending the people who require the
| animal.
|
| I was talking to a friend of mine who works for a museum of
| sorts. These not-service animals are causing problems for
| them. But they are strictly forbidden to say or do anything
| about any pet being claimed to be a service animal. I suspect
| it's because they either (a) don't understand the law, and so
| they're trying to avoid being liable to anything, and/or (b)
| they don't care enough and just want to avoid the drama the
| fraudsters will cause.
|
| I've read comments from people with actual service animals
| saying they wish companies (airports, etc) would crack down
| on it though. Because these untrained animals are making
| their own very expensive animals look bad. AND the untrained
| animals will yip and snap and pester the real service
| animals.
| shariqm wrote:
| Uber settled a case similar to this in 2016 [1,2] and agreed to
| "Require that drivers provide equal service to people with
| disabilities who travel with service animals." Seems like they
| haven't learned their lesson, and this minor new $1.1M fee is
| unlikely to change their behaviour. OTOH, from a Teacher of the
| Visually Impaired (TVI) I know: -
|
| "It's challenging. I think they need to make it really clear this
| is part of their job. It's common for people not to allow dogs in
| their car, just in general. On top of that, they employ a lot of
| people who don't speak english and people from several cultures
| who would never have a dog in the car."
|
| [1] https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-
| blind-o...
|
| [2] https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf
| chrisBob wrote:
| I am amazed that Uber still exists.
|
| Of course a blind woman was refused rides. Their goal is to be a
| taxi service minus that ignores the regulations that were added
| to taxi services for a reason.
|
| As a large healthy white male I know I could probably use Uber
| safely, but I refuse to support a business that makes rides much
| worse and more dangerous for those that are more vulnerable.
| Taxis seem bad enough with the oversight in place.
| xmprt wrote:
| While I agree that Uber could have done more here, I'm not sure
| why you think taxis would be better. If 14 individual yellow
| cab taxis refused to pick up a passenger, it wouldn't be a
| story. Apps can also track your location for safety, allow you
| to report drivers, and help you get picked up from anywhere
| (instead of having to risk going to a busy street where taxis
| might roam).
|
| The way I see it, Uber is super helpful for people with
| disabilities.
| sneak wrote:
| This pales in comparison to some of the stories I've heard from
| women regarding the sexually aggressive and harassing behavior
| they've experienced from (always male) Uber drivers, often on the
| way home late at night (where the driver gets to see their home
| address).
|
| This isn't apparently a firing offense at Uber.
| mrweasel wrote:
| The fact that others have worse problems does not negate the
| illegal treatment of a blind woman.
|
| There is a terrible tendency to brush of problems by pointing
| other issues.
| airstrike wrote:
| Perhaps, but that's entirely off-topic
| sneak wrote:
| Is it? I think it falls squarely on the topic of "Uber
| drivers breaking the law and Uber choosing to not deal with
| it (to the detriment of riders) 'because contractors'", that
| is, just what TFA is about.
| fastball wrote:
| I don't really understand how that is Uber's responsibility
| though. If a crime is committed, that crime should be
| reported and the police should investigate and take action
| based on the result of said investigation. Probably
| reasonable to suspend people pending the outcome of the
| investigation, but not sure unilateral action is warranted
| on the part of the company. We have processes for a reason.
| shuntress wrote:
| Uber is just going to add (in the driver signup forms) a checkbox
| labeled "I agree to comply fully with all ADA requirements" and
| link to a big confusing document that no driver will ever read
| then whenever a driver is sued for failure to comply with ADA
| regulations Uber will hang them out to dry because they are a
| "contractor" not an "employee"
| knz_ wrote:
| There's no reason for disabled people to be taking Ubers. Drivers
| are not trained nor willing to handle disabled passengers in many
| cases. They often have smaller vehicles for economy/poverty
| reasons that not equipped to carry wheelchairs and the like.
| Service animals are similarly not wanted, because the driver
| needs to be made whole if they have an 'accident' in the vehicle.
| The uber cleaning fee does not even come close to the amount of
| lost time and money that comes when these things happen.
|
| Medicare/medicaid should be covering these people's cost of
| transportation, the cost should not be forced onto random kids
| driving uber for side money who are wholly untrained in how to
| deal with a disabled persons needs.
| rectang wrote:
| > _It rejected Uber 's claim that the company itself was not
| liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of
| contractors rather than employees._
|
| Another example of how rideshare companies attempt to offload
| risk and liability onto individual drivers who are generally
| unprepared and unaware that this is happening.
|
| Insurance is a more important example (most rideshare drivers are
| not properly insured), but this legal play illustrates strategic
| consistency by Uber.
| bondolo wrote:
| Instead Uber assisted drivers who had often had many complaints
| against them to remain on the platform and tried to
| mischaracterize the reasons why service was denied.
|
| They are also already subject to "secret shopper" type
| monitoring under their earlier class action settlement for
| similar problems.
|
| Uber just deflects responsibility, makes no improvements and
| continues to violate.
| valuearb wrote:
| Are you saying that the drivers didn't know what they were
| doing to this woman was wrong?
|
| Or are you claiming Uber told the drivers to mistreat her?
| mrweasel wrote:
| My guess is that either: They knew it was wrong, at least
| morally, but they didn't feel like the payment justify the
| extra work, and they don't want dogs in their cars. Or Uber
| failed to train their drivers correctly (assuming any
| training takes place and isn't left to the individual
| contractors). Maybe Uber should sue the drivers for
| inflicting damage to their brand.
| somethingwitty1 wrote:
| I think they are more generally saying that drivers for these
| ride share companies aren't aware of the risks that the
| company is passing on to them. They used the example that
| quite a few drivers have standard insurance (rather than one
| that covers ride-sharing). I don't think they were claiming
| the drivers didn't know what they were doing in that they
| were mistreating her, but more that they weren't aware of the
| laws around it. And that from Uber's perspective, it was the
| driver's responsibility to know all of them and take
| financial liability for violating them. This is counter to so
| many other jobs. If this happened in a fast food restaurant,
| you'd expect that food chain to be held responsible, just
| like Uber was here. The restaurant would likely fire the
| person (how they are held responsible).
| plank_time wrote:
| Uber supplies the insurance while the driver is driving for
| Uber.
| kube-system wrote:
| They have _some_ insurance, which was mostly a result of
| backlash from their original attempts to completely
| externalize those costs. If you wreck while driving an
| Uber, and your liability exceeds the amount Uber bought
| on your behalf, you are responsible for the remainder,
| and most all personal insurance policies will exclude
| coverage for this.
|
| Rideshare companies are well aware of the advantages of
| using independent contractors (it's basically the entire
| point), and many of the independent contractors
| themselves are not entirely aware of the consequences of
| that arrangement.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Why does it matter? I hired Uber; if they hire contractors to
| do their job, that doesn't matter to me. If it goes wrong,
| I'm still gonna sue Uber.
| passivate wrote:
| I think that the general point people are making is that
| Uber is like Ebay - a platform. If a seller on Ebay sells
| you a busted iphone, Ebay has a 'buyer protection' policy
| to help you seek redress. Maybe Uber needs to have some of
| that as well.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Thats what Uber likes to pretend, but at the end of the
| day they are the ones charging my credit card.
| passivate wrote:
| They don't hire the drivers, and pretty much anyone can
| join the platform, so I don't agree that its 'pretend'.
|
| However, I do think we can do more to make sure the
| disabled are taken care of. Maybe riders could mark
| themselves as needing assistance, and drivers could get
| paid a few more pennies per mile for taking care of them
| - at the end of the ride, when the passenger approves the
| 'bonus'.
| mcguire wrote:
| Uber checks the drivers' licenses of the drivers, no?
| Criminal background checks?
| patmcc wrote:
| When I buy something on Ebay I can choose which
| individual person/store I buy from - I can see reviews,
| their specific listing, etc. - even if I'm buying the
| exact same product. With Uber I press a button and _some
| driver_ shows up. I definitely think I 'm dealing
| directly with Uber a lot more than I am with Ebay.
| scsilver wrote:
| That at the end of the day, Uber sent a woman into terrible
| situation, creating a bunch of externalities that society has
| to bare. Society should have the right to identify those
| externalities and bring the companies attention to those
| externalities. If the company says "not my problem" the
| public should get to decide if they want to allow a company
| to blithely foist those externalities onto society.
|
| They have a legal argument why they arent responsible, but
| that doesnt mean they are socially responsible to its users,
| shareholders and other stakeholders.
|
| Even then, the courts have made their order, so it looks like
| their arguments were legally insufficient.
|
| Its hard for me to defend a system that blatently hurts the
| disabled then tries to argue a loophole around the ADA. They
| even have a link declaring how much they care about providing
| accessibility https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility
| .
|
| All this lip service and they wont take responsibility for a
| blind woman being stranded multiple times, because she was
| stranded by their "contractor".
| valuearb wrote:
| What externalities?
| orthecreedence wrote:
| Her getting fired from her job is a big one.
| xmprt wrote:
| I'm not sure how this could be fixed though. Uber tells the
| drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons
| but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? It kind
| of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone
| pushed me into a wall that was built by the store.
|
| Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that
| don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to
| indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I
| don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'.
| mcguire wrote:
| Why should Uber ban drivers that do not comply if Uber
| faces no consequences for the drivers' actions? Why
| should Uber spend one cent of investors' money "allowing
| passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in
| the app" if Uber is not responsible?
| amyjess wrote:
| Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers
| and terminating them for noncompliance. Perhaps they can
| even require drivers to sign contracts making them pay
| five-figure fines _in addition to termination_ in the
| case they 're found to have engaged in discrimination.
|
| They could make drivers keep dashcams, with microphones,
| in their cars and stream them to Uber HQ where a random
| sample of rides will be analyzed by corporate for
| violations.
|
| They could hire blind people with service dogs to act as
| "secret shoppers", requesting rides in random parts of
| random cities, and then reporting back to corporate as to
| how they were treated.
| tinalumfoil wrote:
| > Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling
| drivers and terminating them for noncompliance
|
| I know some do it for fun but most people don't become
| Uber drivers because they're swimming in cash. Your
| solution to helping the blind is to give 5-figure
| liability to low income drivers, and put them on a tight
| leash as you secretly try to trip them up.
| omgwtfbbq wrote:
| >Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA
| for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then
| Uber is liable?
|
| Yes, because they are employees of Uber and this is why
| they tried to argue that they were actually contractors
| to avoid liability.
|
| >It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because
| someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the
| store.
|
| A better analogy would be Cashiers repeatedly refusing to
| check out a blind women's groceries.
|
| >Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that
| don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to
| indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I
| don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the
| drivers'.
|
| In the US at least all companies are beholden to the ADA
| and would certainly be liable to compliance. You seem to
| think that Uber drivers are not really employed by Uber
| which I don't think is a settled legal question but that
| argument was rejected in this case.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Yes, employers are generally liable for their employees
| actions.
| [deleted]
| 1023bytes wrote:
| She didn't get $1.1m, the settlement was $324,000 in damages plus
| legal expenses of $805,313. That kind of changes the narrative in
| my opinion.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Lawyers gotta eat so they can chase them ambulances ...
| paulgb wrote:
| It seems like a lot, but if they are only paid when they win,
| the price has to take into account the risk they are taking
| by going up against a company like Uber that has a _huge_
| vested interest in not losing cases like this. If their
| chance of success going in is 25%, expenses are $100k, 2-3
| lawyers contributed etc. it doesn't seem like such a case of
| highway robbery (no idea if these numbers are realistic)
| elil17 wrote:
| Their chances of success going in are much, much higher.
| Law firms won't take a case unless they think they can get
| something out of it, like a cash settlement. This
| particular case was very very strong. $100k expenses are
| realistic, but only because many law firms choose to have
| extravagant offices and ridiculous corporate retreats. The
| firm is billing $500/hour - that may be the going rate, but
| it doesn't change the fact that lawyers get rich while the
| people they're supposed to represent aren't fairly
| compensated for the harm that is done to them. The $1.1m
| was supposed to represent the damage that the canceled Uber
| rides did to her career, and now that's damage that will
| never fully be made up to her.
| notimetorelax wrote:
| Maybe, but I'm glad lawyers took her case, helped her win, and
| then got paid for it. Ruling itself may extend to future rides
| and help the blind community.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| that definitely changes the narrative. 800k in legal expenses!
| That's a lot of money. The headline should be "lawyers make
| 800k by suing uber". How was the damage calculated by the way?
| 0xEFF wrote:
| It's not that much. It's about 1600 hours of work which seems
| like the right amount taking on Uber and their lawyers.
|
| Also factor in the risk of working 1600 hours and getting
| paid nothing for it if the case was lost.
| tgv wrote:
| 1600 hours is 9 months at 40hr/week. What's the risk they
| were taking? They wouldn't have taken the case if the risk
| of losing was high, so their E(X) was at least 250k.
| rtkwe wrote:
| That math assumes one lawyer working on this which I
| doubt.
| unionpivo wrote:
| more like several people for couple of months.
|
| > What's the risk they were taking? They wouldn't have
| taken the case if the risk of losing was high?
|
| The fact the Uber has all the money in the world to hire
| good layers. And a motive to make it seem like its not
| directly them but their subcontractors problem, that is
| bigger than this single case.
|
| In such cases, there is no such thing as a sure thing.
| AdamJacobMuller wrote:
| > They wouldn't have taken the case if the risk of losing
| was high
|
| Depends how you define high.
|
| 75% chance of winning is still a 25% chance of the
| lawyers walking away with nothing. Lawyers who operate
| like this are effectively making a calculated investment
| of their own time (which could be money from paying
| clients) as well as associate and support time (which is
| money) and they do deserve to be compensated for their
| time and the investment must pay off above just directly
| time in (e.g. they have to be allowed to make profit
| here!).
|
| While I don't LOVE the proportions with 60% of the money
| going to the attorneys, I don't know enough about the
| case to judge it and there are remedies if the plaintiff
| thinks their attorneys are inflating expenses.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| $324,000/ 14 denied rides = $23k in damages per denied ride.
| She must be a much bigger deal than I am.
| yarcob wrote:
| She lost her job and probably a lot of time fighting this
| court case. I don't think breaking it down per ride is a good
| way to look at it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-05 23:01 UTC)