Texas Woman with Cerebral Palsy: Uber Denied Her Service Over Two Dozen Times(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
Texas Woman with Cerebral Palsy: Uber Denied Her Service Over Two Dozen Times
https://gizmodo.com/texas-woman-with-cerebral-palsy-says-uber-denied-servic-1823927550
97 comments
I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK people with disabilities are tired of asking nicely and have moved onto using the courts to enforce the long-existing laws.
With cars it's very clear: you can't refuse to take guide dogs.
With cars it's very clear: you can't refuse to take guide dogs.
That's a pretty bad outcome, since (if "gig economy" businesses drive out regular ones) it will have the effect of making it much harder for disabled and elderly people to travel or even leave the house.
This is a big part of why I bristle when Uber fans claim that ride sharing makes public transit obsolete.
Families, too. Taking kids on the bus or train is fine. If I were to try and use Uber, though, I'd need to also lug along 60lb worth of car seats. One car seat might be manageable, but even then I'd have to deal with the drivers giving me a hard time about installing it.
Families, too. Taking kids on the bus or train is fine. If I were to try and use Uber, though, I'd need to also lug along 60lb worth of car seats. One car seat might be manageable, but even then I'd have to deal with the drivers giving me a hard time about installing it.
> This is a big part of why I bristle when Uber fans claim that ride sharing makes public transit obsolete.
Is public transit where you live like, insanely expensive? Quick back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals that public transit is around 1-2 orders of magnitude cheaper than Uber for me.
Is public transit where you live like, insanely expensive? Quick back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals that public transit is around 1-2 orders of magnitude cheaper than Uber for me.
Today, when lugging 3 enormous picture frames to work, it was either walking to the city bus for $2.50 (or walking farther to the subway for $2.00), or $6.05 door-to-door in a shared hired car via an app (so I hired the car)
They might just not have an insanely long commute like you do.
So a bus is just a free for all then because you don't need a child seat? What's the reasoning behind that, just because of the sheer size and the weight of the bus cushioning the children from harm?
More or less, yeah. Also the height - most of the impact ends up getting absorbed by the bus's undercarriage, and relatively little of it is transferred to the occupants.
Supposedly un-belted bus occupants are safer than belted car occupants, and may even be safer than belted bus occupants, because seat belts tend to cause spinal injuries. Which is why very few school districts opt to install seat belts in their buses.
Supposedly un-belted bus occupants are safer than belted car occupants, and may even be safer than belted bus occupants, because seat belts tend to cause spinal injuries. Which is why very few school districts opt to install seat belts in their buses.
School buses: also consider the weaponization of the seatbelt by the student to annoy their seat mate; the ramifications of extricating dozens of children should the bus ever end up in a position where seatbelts are designed to prevent release...
That's always been the concern of the gig economy. People too poor or with some other qualifier that prevents them from using gig services get stuck with a crappier and crappier public option as people with the means to do so flock to gig services and lose their appetite for funding public services they don't use.
> I suspect that the ADA will come under severe attack in the next few years.
I'm not worried. No politician will carry the flag of denying rights for people with disabilities.
I'm not worried. No politician will carry the flag of denying rights for people with disabilities.
In the USA we elected as president a politician who openly mocked a reporter with a physical disability. It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to imagine someone carrying exactly that flag.
I can only assume they were being sarcastic.
I am, especially with this administration slashing regulations under the guise of being "business friendly".
Eliminating protections for students with disabilities was one of the first things on Devos' docket upon taking office.
Here is one example that looks like it died in the house: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/gop-s-h-r-620-will-gut...
Don't forget the ADA also protects disabled veterans.
The political fall-out would be terribad.
The political fall-out would be terribad.
It would be simple for a bill to carve out exception for veterans. An example of this type of thing is that many laws against government employees forming a union exempt firefighters and police officers.
If a bus driver is allergic to a dog, then it's usually not an issue because the dog won't be very close to the driver, but in the case of an uber, it could be a real problem.
I'm sympathetic to this person wanting to take an uber, but uber needs to be able to allow drivers to mark their cars as "dog friendly". That way she can get a ride, and allergic drivers won't suffer.
I'm sympathetic to this person wanting to take an uber, but uber needs to be able to allow drivers to mark their cars as "dog friendly". That way she can get a ride, and allergic drivers won't suffer.
Major frustration i personally experience!
My dog isn't a service dog, he's just a friend, but sometimes I take the street car in to the office and my dog (Elvis) joins me. If it rains, or if i'm leaving in rush hour (when dogs are not allowed on transit here in Toronto), i take an uber or taxi home. Often Ubers reject me due to the dog, but i have no way of letting them know in advance other than by calling as soon as they accept (which i always do, but even when they say "yeah no worries" they often still reject after the call).
I just want to be able to mark that I have a dog with me, and for the uber drivers to know this when they accept. Surprising them with an animal is to no ones advantage.
We're talking about a Beagle, completely silent, normally just sleeps in cars, 22lbs, sits on my lap.
My dog isn't a service dog, he's just a friend, but sometimes I take the street car in to the office and my dog (Elvis) joins me. If it rains, or if i'm leaving in rush hour (when dogs are not allowed on transit here in Toronto), i take an uber or taxi home. Often Ubers reject me due to the dog, but i have no way of letting them know in advance other than by calling as soon as they accept (which i always do, but even when they say "yeah no worries" they often still reject after the call).
I just want to be able to mark that I have a dog with me, and for the uber drivers to know this when they accept. Surprising them with an animal is to no ones advantage.
We're talking about a Beagle, completely silent, normally just sleeps in cars, 22lbs, sits on my lap.
There's a big difference between proper service dogs and pets.
Totally! I would never suggest otherwise. My point is that animals appearing in your rides as a driver shouldn't come as a surprise. Example: UberX, do you reserve a seat for your service dog, or do you just select 1 seat? There should be no ambiguity here, it should be a clear and well understood process for both the rider and driver.
https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm
Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?
A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service.
"A driver-partner CANNOT lawfully deny service to riders with service animals because of allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals."
https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/
Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?
A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service.
"A driver-partner CANNOT lawfully deny service to riders with service animals because of allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals."
https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/
Does that mean people who are allergic to dogs aren't allowed to be taxi drivers?
No, it means they have to be prepared for it, possibly with face masks they can wear and epi-pens if necessary. How do they deal with walking down the street when there are dogs coming around a blind corner? Do you expect people to not ever own or walk dogs because people on the street might be allergic? Besides, most proper cabs have bullet proof glass between the front and back seat, so it's probably not really an issue anyway.
I assume the allergy situation is different for encountering a dog on the street versus in closed close quarters such as a vehicle.
> Besides, most proper cabs have bullet proof glass between the front and back seat
That seems very location dependent.
That seems very location dependent.
I don't know of anybody who goes into anaphylactic shock due to dog hair, so an epi pen would be a bit much. Standard OTC allergy meds are fine.
Anyway, unless you're constantly carrying around dogs or have unusually severe allergies, this seems like a minor irritant.
Anyway, unless you're constantly carrying around dogs or have unusually severe allergies, this seems like a minor irritant.
Your experience may be common, but it is not universal.
https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/dog-anaphylaxis
https://www.anaphylaxis.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Al...
"In a small number of cases, particularly among asthma sufferers, there can be the risk of a severe asthma attack, and there have been very occasional reports of the most severe, lifethreatening form of allergy (anaphylaxis). "
"You may also be advised to use a preventer (steroid) inhaler and nasal spray starting the day before any unavoidable exposure, for example a planned visit to a home where you know there is a cat. As stated above, if your doctor believes your symptoms could be very severe, you are likely to be prescribed adrenaline (also known as epinephrine) The adrenaline injectors prescribed in the UK at present are Emerade®, EpiPen® and Jext®."
https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/dog-anaphylaxis
https://www.anaphylaxis.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Al...
"In a small number of cases, particularly among asthma sufferers, there can be the risk of a severe asthma attack, and there have been very occasional reports of the most severe, lifethreatening form of allergy (anaphylaxis). "
"You may also be advised to use a preventer (steroid) inhaler and nasal spray starting the day before any unavoidable exposure, for example a planned visit to a home where you know there is a cat. As stated above, if your doctor believes your symptoms could be very severe, you are likely to be prescribed adrenaline (also known as epinephrine) The adrenaline injectors prescribed in the UK at present are Emerade®, EpiPen® and Jext®."
People are legally allowed to avoid dogs they encounter on the street.
What happens when multiple people have conflicting disabilities is not one with a well-settled answer, as far as I'm aware. It can create theoretical situations where all the available options potentially result in someone filing a lawsuit.
No-one's going to stop them, but they probably won't want to unless they have some way to keep their allergic reaction under control.
Well you can reasonably discriminate if the job requires it eg firefighters must be able to pass physical tests some jobs are barred to those with colour blindness for example
They are allowed to choose to pursue such work, but it may not be a good idea.
The key here being "service animal". Not pets, not emotional support animal... a service animal that has been trained to help with a particular skill or assistance.
Pets and the like are not protected under the ADA.
Pets and the like are not protected under the ADA.
Genuine question: is there a good definition of a "service animal", or can I just throw a vest on my pooch and get the ADA protection?
From the ADA site:
Service Animal Defined by Title II and Title III of the ADA. A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.
The key here is 'do work or perform tasks'. As a driver, you can ask "What work or task is this animal individually trained for." Their answer will allow you to determine if the animal is considered a 'service animal' under the ADA.
Service Animal Defined by Title II and Title III of the ADA. A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.
The key here is 'do work or perform tasks'. As a driver, you can ask "What work or task is this animal individually trained for." Their answer will allow you to determine if the animal is considered a 'service animal' under the ADA.
> "A driver-partner CANNOT lawfully deny service to riders with service animals because of allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals."
> https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/
I interpret this as "if you don't want dogs in your car and don't want to be near dogs, don't become an uber driver in the first place".
People have a choice whether or not to work for uber... If you have a religious phobia of dogs or legitimate allergy there are lots of possible choices of work where you have an extremely slim chance of ever encountering a dog.
> https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/
I interpret this as "if you don't want dogs in your car and don't want to be near dogs, don't become an uber driver in the first place".
People have a choice whether or not to work for uber... If you have a religious phobia of dogs or legitimate allergy there are lots of possible choices of work where you have an extremely slim chance of ever encountering a dog.
Then they should not be driving an Uber. Everywhere else, be that shops, taxis, trains etc, there is a legal requirement to allow guide dogs and other service animals. This is the case in the EU at least.
Allowing drivers to opt in or out of providing adequate, and legally mandated, service should not be an option.
Allowing drivers to opt in or out of providing adequate, and legally mandated, service should not be an option.
But that brings up the question if an Uber driver with a severe dog allergy has a disability that needs accommodation?
No it doesn't. There's no law granting the right to work as an Uber driver.
So does that mean an employer has no obligations give accommodations to the disabled given there is no law granting a right to work at a particular job?
That's the painful thing about the gig economy. They aren't employees, and Uber isn't their employer.
They are independent contractors, that is a separate business entity. Which means, you're right that Uber is under no obligation to give accommodations to their drivers, since they are not an employer.
It's...not a situation I'm a fan of, but it's the current legal status quo.
They are independent contractors, that is a separate business entity. Which means, you're right that Uber is under no obligation to give accommodations to their drivers, since they are not an employer.
It's...not a situation I'm a fan of, but it's the current legal status quo.
The 5th Circuit disagrees with this assessment and has allowed independent contractors to sue for ADA violations (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50314-CV0.pdf).
Assuming they are independent contractors, what is Uber's responsibility for discriminatory behavior by its contractors? Would those sames responsibility apply to home owners who hire independent contractors?
Employers must provide "reasonable accommodation" to those with disabilities.
Employers must provide "reasonable accommodation" to their employeers. Uber drivers are not "Employees" of Uber they are Independent Contractors. The driver has the right to refuse letting anyone in their vehicle. The vehicle is owned/leased by the driver not Uber. Uber has very minimal control and liability when it comes to said vehicle.
Gotta love "disruption" /s
Gotta love "disruption" /s
> The driver has the right to refuse letting anyone in their vehicle
Whilst complying with the law. Self employment does not exempt you.
A disabled passenger would have grounds for a case against the "self employed" driver if that driver refused carriage, or did not stop when they saw a service animal.
> The vehicle is owned/leased by the driver not Uber
As are many (most?) taxis and private hire vehicles.
Whilst complying with the law. Self employment does not exempt you.
A disabled passenger would have grounds for a case against the "self employed" driver if that driver refused carriage, or did not stop when they saw a service animal.
> The vehicle is owned/leased by the driver not Uber
As are many (most?) taxis and private hire vehicles.
The accommodation is for that driver to provide medical evidence when they're employed, and then for Uber to only allow drivers with previously declared allergies to decline dogs.
Since Uber still claims it's not an employer it's going to continue to not provide this, which means they'll face dual claims: from guide-dog owning passengers and allergic-to-dog drivers, both of which are being discriminated against by Uber's illegal practice.
Since Uber still claims it's not an employer it's going to continue to not provide this, which means they'll face dual claims: from guide-dog owning passengers and allergic-to-dog drivers, both of which are being discriminated against by Uber's illegal practice.
It's not a settled question whether a taxi can refuse service to a person with a service animal to accommodate a driver's allergies. Some jurisdictions allow it, some do not. It may also depend on the severity of the driver's allergy.
Why would it be any different than a taxi driver in that situation?
> Uber driver with a severe dog allergy has a disability that needs accommodation?
There are three questions there: is an severe dog allergy legally a disability, is the driver in a relationship which entitles accommodation (regular employment would normally qualify, being a contracted supplier of service might not), and is a reasonable accommodation available.
There are three questions there: is an severe dog allergy legally a disability, is the driver in a relationship which entitles accommodation (regular employment would normally qualify, being a contracted supplier of service might not), and is a reasonable accommodation available.
why is this being downvoted?
saying you think that people acting in a commercial setting (and they just are, even if you consider them self-employed, not employees) should abide by the law regulating commercial activity seems like a valid point...?
are people confusing "they" in the first sentence to mean the customer? or what's the angle here?
are people confusing "they" in the first sentence to mean the customer? or what's the angle here?
Uber's whole business model is finding ways to dodge the regulations. The price of dog handling is priced into regular cab fares. Why should Uber be able to undercut those prices by not providing the same service?
What I've said: They "crowdsourced" making an end-run around existing regulations.
Regulatory authorities were/are not staffed to handle mass, individual violations.
And the Fed's continued to turn a blind eye. Ra-ra, "tech economy".
Like the people made miserable by their new AirBnB "neighbors". (Another "crowdsourcing" effort.) These services have victims. Often the same people regulation was designed, negotiated, and put into place over years and decades, to protect.
--
P.S. Like some unfortunate souls get larger payouts from insurance -- because of misfortune they'd rather have avoided. We pay a bit more for rides and hotel rooms, to make sure those with physical challenges have equal access.
And to make sure those who want to live in peace and safety, aren't victimized by unfettered opportunism.
Regulation goes wrong, sure. But ultimately, it's a process of governance -- here in the U.S., democratic governance. So, govern.
If you pass your governance off onto private entities, well, then that's who will own your government.
Today's election day, in my state. Primaries, here. Turnout will be abysmal. And then, people will complain about what they get. "Government doesn't work!"
Well, that's because you didn't.
Regulatory authorities were/are not staffed to handle mass, individual violations.
And the Fed's continued to turn a blind eye. Ra-ra, "tech economy".
Like the people made miserable by their new AirBnB "neighbors". (Another "crowdsourcing" effort.) These services have victims. Often the same people regulation was designed, negotiated, and put into place over years and decades, to protect.
--
P.S. Like some unfortunate souls get larger payouts from insurance -- because of misfortune they'd rather have avoided. We pay a bit more for rides and hotel rooms, to make sure those with physical challenges have equal access.
And to make sure those who want to live in peace and safety, aren't victimized by unfettered opportunism.
Regulation goes wrong, sure. But ultimately, it's a process of governance -- here in the U.S., democratic governance. So, govern.
If you pass your governance off onto private entities, well, then that's who will own your government.
Today's election day, in my state. Primaries, here. Turnout will be abysmal. And then, people will complain about what they get. "Government doesn't work!"
Well, that's because you didn't.
I have had to, on the opposite end, had an Uber take me home/cancel after a few miles because the previous rider had been wearing thick perfume and it was too cold for the driver to drive around with all the windows open. If someone with pet allergies responds the same way I did in a closed environment, I have sympathy for them.
[deleted]
This makes sense. If instead of a dog it's a wheelchair, it's undeniably "not your fault" if you car literally can't handle it.
The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped; I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog.
The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped; I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog.
it's undeniably "not your fault" if you car literally can't handle it
If you are working as a commercial driver or employing commercial drivers then yes, complying with the law is very much "your fault".
If you are working as a commercial driver or employing commercial drivers then yes, complying with the law is very much "your fault".
Most taxis can't do wheelchairs, either. No-one blames the taxi driver.
Cleaning aside, I'm surprised that having unsecured bodies in a passenger vehicle is a requisite for being a service provider.
Letting your dog loose in your own car is your own choice, but the trunk exists for unsecured cargo so in an accident, you don't have large objects flying around inside the cabin.
The correct solution would be to identify the handicapped passenger with animal and dispatch an appropriate vehicle. Instead, Uber puts both driver and passenger in danger with this policy.
Letting your dog loose in your own car is your own choice, but the trunk exists for unsecured cargo so in an accident, you don't have large objects flying around inside the cabin.
The correct solution would be to identify the handicapped passenger with animal and dispatch an appropriate vehicle. Instead, Uber puts both driver and passenger in danger with this policy.
People do not put their dogs in the trunk and they may or may not use carriers in vehicles with a back cargo hatch.
I'm aware people do not put dogs in the trunk, nor was I suggesting that-- hence dispatching an alternative vehicle to accommodate an animal.
A van with a carrier, or an SUV with a partitioned front/rear would suffice. Instead of calling Uber X, you call Uber Furry or somesuch.
A van with a carrier, or an SUV with a partitioned front/rear would suffice. Instead of calling Uber X, you call Uber Furry or somesuch.
The entire point of disability discrimination laws (which have existed for many years now) is prevent this kind of segregation.
I see what you're saying, but let's be realistic. Is every Uber/Lyft vehicle going to be outfitted with a wheelchair lift, just in case? That's definitely not going to happen. Most vehicles cannot accommodate a wheelchair, and the ones that can (vans) are very expensive to modify.
I am not completely wheelchair-dependent, but I cannot get into a tall vehicle (like an SUV). Last time I used Lyft, I had to call a vehicle and just cross my fingers that I would be assigned to one that would work for me. If not, I had to cancel and try again. I would much rather have a special vehicle dispatched to me than be assigned a vehicle that is inadequate.
I am not completely wheelchair-dependent, but I cannot get into a tall vehicle (like an SUV). Last time I used Lyft, I had to call a vehicle and just cross my fingers that I would be assigned to one that would work for me. If not, I had to cancel and try again. I would much rather have a special vehicle dispatched to me than be assigned a vehicle that is inadequate.
Stereotypes notwithstanding, a lot of regulations/laws do make reasonable tradeoffs. In this case, it appears as if the ADA guidelines do require a taxi driver to help stow a wheelchair but they don't require every cab to be a van equipped with a wheelchair lift. It would be nice if Uber allowed special requests although, of course, the number of options could explode quickly and it probably doesn't fit well with the Uber automated dispatch model.
> The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped
The only way this is generally true of privately-offered public accommodations covered by ADA is that the requirements impose additional costs on business which they pass on to all customers.
> I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog.
The occasional need to do so is a cost of doing business which should factor into the minimum rate that drivers are willing to accept. No specific subsidy should be needed.
The only way this is generally true of privately-offered public accommodations covered by ADA is that the requirements impose additional costs on business which they pass on to all customers.
> I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog.
The occasional need to do so is a cost of doing business which should factor into the minimum rate that drivers are willing to accept. No specific subsidy should be needed.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. It should factor in, but AFAIK doesn't.
the equivalent might be that every uber ride would become .001% more expensive.
For confirmed (as in, by a doctor) dog allergic drivers I'm cool, for everything else this just seems like a cheap excuse and shifting of responsibilities...
If it takes more time to get a passenger with cerebral palsy in and out of the car, then a driver who picks one up is losing money compared to transporting a regular passenger. If the government wants encourage ride-sharing services, instead of punishing low-paid workers for doing what's in their interests, it should give drivers bonuses for transporting passengers who present difficulties.
My wife is a doctor. She does not get an extra fee for treating non-English speaking patients, but she needs to pay a translator, and the appointments are longer. She is effectively punished for seeing patients who don't speak English. By the same logic as above, either the insurance company or the patient should pay an extra fee when a translator is required. Otherwise, doctors will be motivated to avoid working where lots of patients need translators.
My wife is a doctor. She does not get an extra fee for treating non-English speaking patients, but she needs to pay a translator, and the appointments are longer. She is effectively punished for seeing patients who don't speak English. By the same logic as above, either the insurance company or the patient should pay an extra fee when a translator is required. Otherwise, doctors will be motivated to avoid working where lots of patients need translators.
Perhaps we want to help people with greater needs, and not stick them with higher prices everywhere they go - in part because people with greater needs often have fewer resources.
Every business must pull its weight in contributing to society and make some sacrifices; otherwise society, the economy, your community wouldn't function. Your wife, I, and everyone reading this benefit from the sacrifices others have made over centuries. We are specks of dust on the shoulders of giants, so personally I'm happy and proud to be able to give a little.
> My wife is a doctor. She does not get an extra fee for treating non-English speaking patients
Maybe she should get a smaller fee for treating easier patients, and not only those who are easier to communicate with but those with easier conditions to treat, those who are more agreeable, those who can comprehend medical issues more readily, those who are on time, those who can afford medications, devices, tests, treatments, etc.
Every business has a variety of customers of differing levels of difficulty, and generally charges them all the same; it averages out. Go buy some clothes; if you take more of the salesperson's time, they don't charge you more.
Every business must pull its weight in contributing to society and make some sacrifices; otherwise society, the economy, your community wouldn't function. Your wife, I, and everyone reading this benefit from the sacrifices others have made over centuries. We are specks of dust on the shoulders of giants, so personally I'm happy and proud to be able to give a little.
> My wife is a doctor. She does not get an extra fee for treating non-English speaking patients
Maybe she should get a smaller fee for treating easier patients, and not only those who are easier to communicate with but those with easier conditions to treat, those who are more agreeable, those who can comprehend medical issues more readily, those who are on time, those who can afford medications, devices, tests, treatments, etc.
Every business has a variety of customers of differing levels of difficulty, and generally charges them all the same; it averages out. Go buy some clothes; if you take more of the salesperson's time, they don't charge you more.
just to prevent more "but the driver has an allergy, too" comments:
yes, some might. and we can have a debate about that. but most don't, and an allergy is explicitely not the reason all of the drivers in this case gave. so it doesn't apply here.
yes, some might. and we can have a debate about that. but most don't, and an allergy is explicitely not the reason all of the drivers in this case gave. so it doesn't apply here.
The difference is that at some point in your Uber "career" you will be expected to transport someone with a service animal and you can't legally refuse to transport them. The way the law is written you can't even ask to see proof it's a service animal, if someone tells you it's a service animal then it legally is a service animal to explicitly prevent this form of discrimination.
If you can't perform all the legal requirements of a job then there's a case to be made that you probably shouldn't be doing that job.
If you can't perform all the legal requirements of a job then there's a case to be made that you probably shouldn't be doing that job.
Taxi drivers can't do any of that either, so I don't see the problem.
I agree with the last part at least. What I mean is "we can have a debate about whether the current legal requirements need exceptions for eg allergic drivers".
When booking a ride, Uber needs three toggles:
- Do you a service dog
- Do you want AC
- Do you want to talk to the driver
Edit: I can’t format.
- Do you a service dog
- Do you want AC
- Do you want to talk to the driver
Edit: I can’t format.
That could lead to discrimination if someone see's a person has a service dog.
The whole point of the ADA is to not treat people with disabilities as if they are second class citizens.
The whole point of the ADA is to not treat people with disabilities as if they are second class citizens.
Of course. But that driver could have a disability - their allergy if it’s severe.
Maybe it shouldn’t be a toggle, maybe it’s a part of both the driver and users profile so a driver can’t descriminate and instead it’s more of a matching algorithm.
Maybe it shouldn’t be a toggle, maybe it’s a part of both the driver and users profile so a driver can’t descriminate and instead it’s more of a matching algorithm.
Try getting an uber with a child seat.
Don't Uber already provide that? I saw it in NYC (maybe they pick few cities now to test this out)
https://help.uber.com/h/3abcbae1-132b-42a9-8277-0dab00fa3879
https://help.uber.com/h/3abcbae1-132b-42a9-8277-0dab00fa3879
Only in NYC so far, last I checked.
My wife knows a taxi service here in Boston that we use when we're travelling with the little guy. Last time we flew, we were picked up in a black car with tinted windows and leather seats. There was a stylish black carseat in the back for him ready to go. Sadly, he's still too young to feel like a rock star.
My wife knows a taxi service here in Boston that we use when we're travelling with the little guy. Last time we flew, we were picked up in a black car with tinted windows and leather seats. There was a stylish black carseat in the back for him ready to go. Sadly, he's still too young to feel like a rock star.
It's interesting that the lawsuit is against Uber, and not the "independent contractors" that fulfill the service on Uber's behalf. Likely because there's no money in suing drivers, while Uber itself has billions.
Uber is apparently the best way for this woman with cerebral palsy to get around, given how much she uses it. Even with some drivers deciding that they don't want to take her.
The headline should specify that Uber drivers denied service, not the company itself. The drivers violated Uber’s own policy regarding service animals.
Was disciplinary action taken against those drivers? If they continued to be associated with Uber, without consequences, then Uber is complicit in their behavior.
>Steele’s suit notes that Uber corporate were not especially helpful in resolving her ongoing denial-of-service issues.
Seems like Uber is the ultimate root cause.
>Steele’s suit notes that Uber corporate were not especially helpful in resolving her ongoing denial-of-service issues.
Seems like Uber is the ultimate root cause.
This[1] suggests that they do have specialized channels to report this exact type of problem, and that they do investigate and take action on reported cases. It says they also periodically send reminder emails about the legal requirements for drivers.
I talked to a driver once that said that he got suspended when a rider had erroneously reported that he "looked high" (despite that being the only complaint that day despite him having had many passengers). He complained that Uber had not even bothered to hear his side of the story before suspending him and they should've told him to come to a driver center to get tested, instead of just taking someone's report at face value. He said he went to the hospital to get drug tested and had to submit the results to get reinstated. So at least from anecdata, it seems non-compliant drivers do get booted on a shoot-first-ask-later fashion.
It sounds like the problem here is that some drivers still choose to break the law on the 1 out a 1000 chance they run into the service dog situation, even despite all the warnings telling them not to do it.
[1](https://accessibility.uber.com/)
I talked to a driver once that said that he got suspended when a rider had erroneously reported that he "looked high" (despite that being the only complaint that day despite him having had many passengers). He complained that Uber had not even bothered to hear his side of the story before suspending him and they should've told him to come to a driver center to get tested, instead of just taking someone's report at face value. He said he went to the hospital to get drug tested and had to submit the results to get reinstated. So at least from anecdata, it seems non-compliant drivers do get booted on a shoot-first-ask-later fashion.
It sounds like the problem here is that some drivers still choose to break the law on the 1 out a 1000 chance they run into the service dog situation, even despite all the warnings telling them not to do it.
[1](https://accessibility.uber.com/)
[deleted]
It always bothers me when people lay out the defense "but it was their choice".
Sure. It was. It was a choice made within a context created by someone else; to deny the role Uber played in that choice is just as problematic as blaming Uber for the loss of taxi jobs.
Sure. It was. It was a choice made within a context created by someone else; to deny the role Uber played in that choice is just as problematic as blaming Uber for the loss of taxi jobs.
This shifting of responsabilities (and, mostly, blame) is exactly what I've come to expect of Uber and it's kind.
By "it's kind" I don't mean evil people but rather anything that might describe itself as "Uber for X".
This is why I'm so happy about developments like in the UK [1], which forces Uber to assume responsibility in this kind of situation.
Responsibility to the customer is something that should not be delegated IMHO. If you sell someone a TV set including installation and the person installing it fucks up, you deal with the company who sold it (and it's their reputation on the line) and if they want to, they then deal with their employee/contractor. Why should we settle for anything else with Uber?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-lose...
Responsibility to the customer is something that should not be delegated IMHO. If you sell someone a TV set including installation and the person installing it fucks up, you deal with the company who sold it (and it's their reputation on the line) and if they want to, they then deal with their employee/contractor. Why should we settle for anything else with Uber?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-lose...
My immediate thought reading the headline was, "Drivers are or Uber the company is?" so there was some ambiguity for me. Especially since I just took a Lyft ride with the parent of someone with cerebral palsy (we talked about it during the ride)
as well as the abuse by some of bringing companion animals onto airplanes.
With independent contractors making a large part of the work force, accommodating is harder for individuals than for companies, and so political momentum may build up for repeal of the various laws.