Texas Woman with Cerebral Palsy: Uber Denied Her Service Over Two Dozen Times
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
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.
With cars it's very clear: you can't refuse to take guide dogs.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not worried. No politician will carry the flag of denying rights for people with disabilities.
The political fall-out would be terribad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you are working as a commercial driver or employing commercial drivers then yes, complying with the law is very much "your fault".
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.
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.
22 lbs ≈ 10 kg
From Australia i think in kg but constantly convert to lb for everyone else.
Allowing drivers to opt in or out of providing adequate, and legally mandated, service should not be an option.
are people confusing "they" in the first sentence to mean the customer? or what's the angle here?
Gotta love "disruption" /s
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Anyway, unless you're constantly carrying around dogs or have unusually severe allergies, this seems like a minor irritant.
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®."
That seems very location dependent.
> 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.
Pets and the like are not protected 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Do you a service dog
- Do you want AC
- Do you want to talk to the driver
Edit: I can’t format.
The whole point of the ADA is to not treat people with disabilities as if they are second class citizens.
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.
https://help.uber.com/h/3abcbae1-132b-42a9-8277-0dab00fa3879
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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...