Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

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.

If you work in a customer facing capacity, you should be prepared to encounter service animals, full stop.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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

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.

Uber doesn't want their drivers classified as employees because it would cost them a lot of money in benefits and possibly back-pay.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What about the incorrect political beliefs, are you saying I have to transport a Republican? or a Nazi?

I stopped using Uber when I got a child. I didn't have the app installed for 4 years now. Simply because they don't offer a service with child seat. I'm not bringing my own child seat, no way. Instead, I'm using bubs taxi in Sydney that will come with child seat and other stuff that may be necessary when you travel with a toddler. They target families with kids. If we to follow you "obligation" on the companies to serve anyone, there would be no bubs taxi for me to use.

They're not a charity. If you want to help the less fortunate, then donate directly to them.

Or if you believe that helping the less fortunate should be something people should be required to do, under pain of imprisonment, then advocate taxing people, and using that revenue to directly subsidize the less fortunate.

There's no reason the mandatory charity should fall entirely on service providers. It's not even an efficient way to help the less fortunate. If they received cash subsidies instead, then service providers would crop up that specialize in servicing people who have their disability, and would provide a far higher quality of service per dollar spent.

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.

Of course without anything in place there is effectively no accommodation whatsoever which seems to be one of the things that lead to this penalty (with probably more to come if more people are treated badly because of a disability).

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.

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".

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.

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.

"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 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.

Sure, which clearly matters of Uber drivers are employees, but less so if they are independent service providers.

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.

There's not too many jobs where a dog might end up right behind you for extended periods of time in an enclosed space.

Also factor in the risk of working 1600 hours and getting paid nothing for it if the case was lost.

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.

> 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

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.

>it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees

That's not likely to change contract or not...

An individual driver is not required to. If that particular driver can't, Uber still has to provide that service for the passenger.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I don't see how this isn't a win-win for them to allow it but give each driver a preference.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.