Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
1–10 of 502 posts
Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
#2Does an uber driver know when they accept a ride that the rider has a dog with them?
Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
#3Does an uber driver know when they accept a ride that the rider has a dog with them?
It shouldn't matter. As they say in the article, "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go."
If the driver isn't willing to comply with the regulations, then they shouldn't broadcast their services on Uber.
Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
#4Does an uber driver know when they accept a ride that the rider has a dog with them?
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem as if it's legal for them to take that fact into account when making a decision
Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
#5Does an uber driver know when they accept a ride that the rider has a dog with them?
Presumably not. Even if they did, what should they do with that information? Service dogs have special status.
Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
#6Does an uber driver know when they accept a ride that the rider has a dog with them?
It shouldn't matter. As they say in the article, "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." If the driver isn't willing to comply with the regulations, then they shouldn't broadcast their services on Uber.
You are getting downvoted for mysterious reasons, you are of course correct, and this is why the plaintif was awarded $1.1m...
Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
#7> It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees.
I feel like money would be better spent raising awareness of service dogs and dealing with fraudulent (they do call it fraud, right?) service dogs than fining Uber.
Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
#8This pales in comparison to some of the stories I've heard from women regarding the sexually aggressive and harassing behavior they've experienced from (always male) Uber drivers, often on the way home late at night (where the driver gets to see their home address).
This isn't apparently a firing offense at Uber.
Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
#9This pales in comparison to some of the stories I've heard from women regarding the sexually aggressive and harassing behavior they've experienced from (always male) Uber drivers, often on the way home late at night (where the driver gets to see their home address). This isn't apparently a firing offense at Uber.
Perhaps, but that's entirely off-topic
Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
#10> It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees.
Another example of how rideshare companies attempt to offload risk and liability onto individual drivers who are generally unprepared and unaware that this is happening.
Insurance is a more important example (most rideshare drivers are not properly insured), but this legal play illustrates strategic consistency by Uber.