Uber refuses to serve blind users with service animals
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
That doesn't even make sense. Any place that accommodates the public is bound by the ADA. Most buildings are owned by private companies, but they are still required to be ADA-compliant.
This is extremely dangerous as behavior, anyway, the judge decided to proceed I am curious to see what will the outcome be.
The absolutely insane thing about all of this is that the clinic already had most of the accommodations in question. They had accessible tables already, they just didn't teach front desk staff about them and had policies set up that required doctors to work exclusively in specific areas. The only significant change was a bathroom remodel, and they're not a small clinic by any means. But the fact that they dragged her criminal history into the light made absolutely no sense, compounded by the fact that said criminal history involved getting arrested specifically to fight access violations like that one.
Not at all surprised by Uber's tactic here. Sickens me that we still have to fight very basic battles like these 25 years after the ADA was passed. I just want to grab some people and shake them until loose braincells fall into place or something.
Edit: Oh, right, and opposing counsel wanted the passwords to her Gmail and Facebook so they could read anything she wrote about the clinic in question. They also considered expanding that request to anyone she may have spoken to/emailed about them (I.e. me as her boyfriend.) I wish they'd have tried that so I could pull in counsel of my own.
Whatever building she was going to passed the ADA requirement at the time of construction. Businesses are loathe to remodel buildings because of ADA compliance [1]. Therefore, the negotiations that your girlfriend was engaging in suggest that these were not negotiations, but trying to accommodate her issues. At which time, your girlfriend can take her business elsewhere or try to work within the parameters of the buildings ADA requirements at the time of construction.
Alternatively, you can file a frivolous lawsuit to try and force a business to fix the issue.
A good defense attorney would bring forward past activism to prove that the plaintiff's background suggests a history of causing issues for businesses. Who knows, this may show that she is one of the disability filers who just does it over [2] and over in what some claim are legalized extortion [3]. The defense is merely trying to show that she may be associated with such groups, seek counsel from these groups, and other items. That being said, do not give those passwords unless they get a subpoena, because they do not need it unless the judge agrees.
All this being said, I do agree with you on the ADA compliance. I walk through stores and bring up with employees that certain areas are not ADA accessible, tight walkways or weird floor movements, I AM LOOKING AT YOU FORMER HOLLISTER LAYOUT. The problem for actual disabled people are the jerks who take advantage of ADA to force compliance issues beyond a reasonable doubt and in the case of the Uber, I understand that people might not want fake service animals in the car tearing up their luxurious leather interior.
[1] http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan/19/disability-lawsui...
[2] http://legalnewsline.com/issues/tort-reform/254776-eight-pla...
[3] http://overlawyered.com/2014/04/nbc-affiliate-california-ada...
The "jerks filing disability lawsuits" trope is one that the media likes to trot out for a good story, and which should really go away. The ADA in states other than, I think it's California, only allows you to sue for compliance, not for additional damages. I'm not saying that you're claiming this, but it isn't easy or rewarding to bring one of these lawsuits because all you can hope for after hours of work is to be able to use a bathroom somewhere you couldn't before. My GF was indeed subpoenaed, and was reduced to tears just because she wanted an accessible table and bathroom at her doctor's office. The "take your business elsewhere" argument is also a tough one to uphold when a) even hospitals have inaccessible bathrooms in their own rooms, so there's no guarantee that you'll find an accessible business on your next time out and b) you've already forged a relationship with a doctor who understands your needs. FTR, she had already taken her business elsewhere several times that year by virtue of needing tests done at other facilities, and in addition to the same "no accessible tables" argument she was almost dropped by staff who refused to listen to her and who insisted on doing things their own way. Being able to take your business elsewhere and having a better outcome is a point of able-bodied privilege.
Whoa, that's just terrible and should (in my non-US opinion) be cause for reporting the driver in question to the police for abusing the dog.
Cages are built to secure the animals, trunks are not, especially ones that does not belong to you.
How about I shove you in the trunk instead of the backseat if the ride is only for 2-3 seconds. Are you okay with that?
For example, if an Uber driver has dog allergies[1], should blind service dogs override that? Should the blind person's right to mobility trump the driver's discomfort? The discomfort could also continue (shedding, dander) after the blind passenger has left the car. Would it be ok if Uber had an option for driver profiles for drivers to check "I have dog allergies." ?
I'd anticipate the reaction to be "we shouldn't allow Uber to legally offer that option because every driver would check it to keep dogs out of their cars". I'm not sure if that would be true. Wouldn't there be a good percentage of drivers who would love to welcome dogs into their cars? I don't know. I'm not an Uber driver so I don't have any vested interest either way. Just curious what people think.
Also, let's compare the situation to renting apartments or housing. It is illegal to disallow service dogs even if the landlord has a "no pets" policy. The law allows for the disabled have an exemption from such policies. But, the landlords also have an exemption from that exemption if the housing is owner-occupied.[2] In other words, the landlord can't prevent the service dog from living at the rental condo out on the beach but the landlord can prevent the dog from moving into an upstairs loft in his house.
Presumably, most Uber drivers are driving their personal cars and not rotating the driving among a fleet of rental cars from the taxi corporation. Is there a parallel between renting owner-occupied housing and driving a personal car for money? Is there a parallel between Uber-to-personal_car and Airbnb-to-residential-home? Consider that a car is a much more intimate space than a house.
I am allergic to animal dander. I can't be around cats, dogs or rabbits and the like without sneezing, wheezing and coughing.
Why should someone else's disability take precedence over mine?
Yes, I'm sure that some drivers would falsely claim to have an allergy just to keep animals out of their cars but some passengers would also lie about their pets being service animals just to get them in the vehicles.
Additionally, there's a world of difference between a 1500 square foot fast food restaurant and the interior of one's vehicle.
A reasonable adjustmet might be for drivers with allergies to i) get shots and desensitization treatments ii) carry disposable dust sheets to cover the seats when transporting dogs iii) explain before taking a booking that they have a diagnosed allergy and that they cannot transport animals.
I don't know how prevalent allergies are. How many of these drivers have allergies? How many of them just don't like dogs?
EDIT: just thought if I have had a dandery dusty smelly dog who has been sitting on my lap all morning and I then get in the car am I going to set off an allergy?
I understand your statement but to clarify, my open question was about whether it __should__ be an intrinsic function of the job.
Should a person's personal car be compelled to accept service dogs with no restrictions? I assume your answer would be yes. I then ask, __should__ personal homes that have a spare bedroom to rent be also compelled to accept service dogs? At the moment, personal residences are exempt from FHA & ADA laws favoring service dogs but let's not talk about what the law __is__ -- we already know what it is. Instead, to entertain the hypothetical, the question is __should__ homeowners be compelled to the same standard as drivers?
If the restrictions/freedoms for a personal car and a personal home __should__ be different, the question could then be... why?
The other is analogous to common carrier or net neutrality. Earning money from passengers is a privilege that society grants some drivers, and one of the things society demnds in return is that the drivers do not discriminate based on protected characteristics.
On one hand I see some drivers with medical condition that makes it harder for them to have dogs in their cars. On the other hand I see a group that faces continuing discrimination and ignorance from wide sections of society. I find it hard to have much sympathy for drivers. Especially in the cases listed in the article where it's not clear whether any of the drivers have dog allergies or not.
That said, I understand the overoccupied argument and support it. As a former guide dog user, I wouldn't have wanted to live with someone with dog allergies. But if you drive an Uber vehicle then you should be prepared to handle adverse situations. I imagine giving a dog a lift from points A to B is a lot less adverse than, say, giving a drunk person a free ride and hoping they don't vomit all over your interior. :)
Another issue that got some press for a couple years after 9/11 is Muslim drivers refusing to let guide dogs into their cars. (Aside: this would probably be legal under all the religious freedom restoration acts going around.)
The best thing about Uber consolidating the taxi industry is that it rationalizes these practices and makes them legible to democratic processes and regulation.
Under most of the RFRAs, a government with a compelling interest (e.g. allowing the blind to take taxis) would have to use the least restrictive means to achieve it. In the case of something like a car service company or Uber, this could mean permitting individual drivers to decline the hail, but guaranteeing that someone will be available to answer it. Then, if all goes well, the blind person gets his or her ride, the religious person goes about his or her religious life without losing his job, and everyone's happy.
Consider also Utah, which permits a county clerk to opt out of officiating a same-sex marriage out of religious objections... if a substitute is available.
(For cities with more street-hailed cabs, in the style of London and New York, this may not be enough, but enforcement of any rules on street hails is problematic, as anyone who has tried to take a NYC taxi somewhere inconvenient is able to tell you.)
> No, but people don't like change.
Please. Why can't it be both? It's pretty clear to me from things I've read here that the guys in charge of Uber are a bunch of jerks. It's also pretty clear that the various crackdowns on Uber at the behest of the local taxi lobby+ to "protect" me from being able to take a cheaper, better ride home from the airport... they're also a bunch of jerks.
(+ and/or the local mafia, depending on your jurisdiction)
http://www.news.com.au/national/taxi-driver-told-blind-woman...
$740 AUD fine for refusing to transport a dog.
Taxis in the US already face suspension of license if they refuse service animals in most states. Only fair Uber be held to the same standards.
At least with Uber you can go after the drivers and file complaints.
* Service animals aren't just dogs. Miniature horses, pigs, cats, whatever. Don't forget Emotional Support Animals. (Why are those important? Because they enable people with special needs / mental illness to function in "normal" situations.)
* Uber drivers don't want animals in their personal cars, got it. But it's a choice to be an Uber driver, not a choice to be disabled or need an emotional support animal. When we think about this, we should think about who has the choice here.
There's an easy fix.
Default every Uber drive to accept all animals. Allow the Uber drivers to opt out, and in so doing lower their rank in search and have a badge next to their name, "Restrictions Apply" or something along those lines. Let their customers choose if they want to give money to people who are discriminatory. People with the disabilities shouldn't be forced to check a box or ask for special assistance, that's why you would default all drivers to accept pets and explain why it's important. Being able to provide a service to all users is important, but for fringe groups there isn't always an economic drive to do so. Like providing a seat belt, training with how to handle service animals should be mandatory. (The one driver put a service dog in the trunk?! Please tell me he isn't working at Uber any more.)
Personal note: Ever tried to take a kid who has special needs to see the Grand Canyon? What started out as a dream trip was soured by people in hotels making a huge stink about Emotional Support Dogs, and reminding us at every turn that we had a special needs kid with us. People could have been kind, they could have pulled us aside, or read the notes from their boss that we were coming... but every time we hit a new hotel people would inevitably yell at my cousin, who has DS, because he would bring his dog with him to the lobby or near the pool, or even on a trail. "No pets allowed!" Even though we called ahead, the staff on the ground wasn't trained to deal with service animals. Without his dog, the world was a scary place form my cousin; Emotional Support Dogs are like hearing aids or canes or a pair of glasses that way.
Anyway if you see someone who has a dog in a place you wouldn't normally expect to see a dog, please assume they have a good reason for it. You don't know how much damage you can do with one comment, or one harsh tone. We're all just trying to get through the day as best we can.
I'm not familiar with the standards by which a dog or any other animal is determined to be a reasonable accommodation for a disability. I know they're not limited to physical impairments.
Not really sure what you're trying to say here, but it sounds very much against therapy animals. With a dog, people who are suffering can take part in "normal" activities. Like a hearing aid, wheelchair, or glasses. Without protection to bring their dog they have to have the conversation, "Hey I'm defective, let's all spend time talking about it before I get in the car..." That's messed up. You shouldn't put people who need a therapy dog on the spot like that -- their lives tend to be hard enough.
Then drivers are informed and free to accept or refuse such requests.
Edit: I don't get the hate, when you buy a plane ticket it's the same thing, it has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to deal with being able to accommodate them.
So if the person can't fit a service dog in their car, they won't have them service that call but send another car that is better for the guide dog.
(Edit: I meant to upvote you, but it seems I accidentally downvoted. Sorry. )
To be honest if I was running a taxi service I would prefer well trained dogs to humans.
However I'm not sure how does the ADA applies, if it's to Uber as a whole or to the individual driver.
What a great incentives lesson:
* You have a business that wants to make sure that employee cars are in tip top condition.
* You have an employee who wants to maintain tip-top condition.
* You have a user who would like to board their service animal
* There exists a certain percentage of service animals that their service animal status is for emotional stress and does not have an animal trained to the level of a blind user. These animals tear up a car, urinate within a car, etc. Witness the "service animals" on airplanes defecating and rerouting a plane. [1] Getting the "service animal" status entitles owners to a lot of benefits [2].
The owner does not want their car damaged by the "service animal" and lose the ability to provide services to future clients. The future clients will give bad ratings for the physical appearance of the car and take the owner's ability to work out of operation. If this issue was brought up by the taxi industry, I want to elect that person to the National Security Council, because this is a brilliant solution to bring down Uber.
1. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Dog-Poo-Forces-Phi... 2. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/08/03/flie...
Service dogs must be trained to perform a task (not just alleviate stress with their presence) for a very small list of tasks defined by the ADA. Business owners have a right to refuse entry to "emotional support animals" http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/psychiatric-service-d...
[1] I really hate these things--maybe 5% are valid, but the rest are bunk.