Are you saying that the drivers didn't know what they were doing to this woman was wrong?
Or are you claiming Uber told the drivers to mistreat her?
Or are you claiming Uber told the drivers to mistreat her?
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".
Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'.
They could make drivers keep dashcams, with microphones, in their cars and stream them to Uber HQ where a random sample of rides will be analyzed by corporate for violations.
They could hire blind people with service dogs to act as "secret shoppers", requesting rides in random parts of random cities, and then reporting back to corporate as to how they were treated.
I know some do it for fun but most people don't become Uber drivers because they're swimming in cash. Your solution to helping the blind is to give 5-figure liability to low income drivers, and put them on a tight leash as you secretly try to trip them up.
Yes, because they are employees of Uber and this is why they tried to argue that they were actually contractors to avoid liability.
>It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store.
A better analogy would be Cashiers repeatedly refusing to check out a blind women's groceries.
>Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'.
In the US at least all companies are beholden to the ADA and would certainly be liable to compliance. You seem to think that Uber drivers are not really employed by Uber which I don't think is a settled legal question but that argument was rejected in this case.
However, I do think we can do more to make sure the disabled are taken care of. Maybe riders could mark themselves as needing assistance, and drivers could get paid a few more pennies per mile for taking care of them - at the end of the ride, when the passenger approves the 'bonus'.
Rideshare companies are well aware of the advantages of using independent contractors (it's basically the entire point), and many of the independent contractors themselves are not entirely aware of the consequences of that arrangement.