Hacker News Reader

Comment by Causality1 | Hacker News Reader

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".

View on HN

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.

How does the analogy of different rooms translate to vehicles? A different vehicle?

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

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.

> 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.

> 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.

That would be another reasonable accommodation. Not assigning driver's to those passengers would be a number of reasonable accommodations. There can be many different reasonable accommodations that can be made for a given problematic circumstance. The burden is on the company to find and implement _a_ reasonable accommodation.

> I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe that fear of dogs counts as a disability.

I don't think a garden variety fear of dogs would could (but IANAL either, and I don't know). I could imagine a case where someone has a genuine phobia of dogs, and is able to get a doctor's genuine medical opinion that a presence in an enclosed vehicle could cause severe anxiety, to the point of causing repeated anxiety or panic attacks. That kind of scenario may well rise to the level of a disability that must be accommodated.

I'm hesitant to make any broad sweeping claims about what should "count" as a workplace disability.

But also thankfully it seems that drivers being independent contractors doesn't absolve Uber of following the ADA.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

Uber could/should pay drivers who pick up service animals more to counterbalance.

> 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.

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.

Yeah, I think the issue is that you can't require the rider to say they have a service dog ahead of time.

In two weeks, all Uber drivers will indicate that they are allergic to dogs. Next move?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

> 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.

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.

If the Uber drivers are independent contractors. Wouldn't they be a business under 15 employees, thus not required to be ADA compliant?

Well apparently not, or Uber would have won this court case, I think.

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.

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.

> 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.

Restaurants don't have to serve peanuts at all. They have to allow guide dogs.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Most people in the "rideshare business" are working there because they don't have a better alternative.

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.

If they are physically unable to work in the "rideshare business", however....

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.

> 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.).

You can’t reject work for reasons that are illegal.

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.

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.

Couldn't this result in anyone just abusing this system when they don't want to drive with service dogs in the car?

IMO that's not a valid reason to ignore deep-seated fears of others.

What if I'm afraid of homosexuals or black people?

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, ...)

I don't think it's funny either. I am a black person, and plenty of white people have been traumatized by their experiences (or lack of experiences) with black people. It's also not "immoral" to be afraid of anything, it is uncontrollable.

Don't avoid a direct, clear question by painting it as non-serious.

> 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.

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.

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.

How to determine if the passenger has a service dog?

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.

Seeing as there is no national certification for service animals, the same problem applies to them as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com