Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

51–60 of 502 posts

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

#52

> "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." Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one se…

Don't do a job that legally requires you to potentially have a service animal in your car then...

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

#53
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, makes no sense that anyone can register their pet as emotional support.

Emotional support animal =/= service dog. 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.

Note that someone disabled can train the service dog themselves, though-- there's no certification, requirement of specific breed, etc.

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

#54
post #2

Does 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

If Uber drivers are employees, it is probably legal (and possibly mandatory for the employer) to take the employee health impact into account when assigning employees.

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.

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

#55
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, makes no sense that anyone can register their pet as emotional support.

Emotional support animal =/= service dog. 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.

Yes but you also don't have to prove that your dog is the latter, so...

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

#56

> "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." Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one se…

Work on yourself. That's the only way

No. I shouldn't have to be around dogs. My fear is justified and I don't need to work on myself.

Service robots are fine with me. But I shouldn't have to be forced to be around dogs.

If someone was deathly allergic to peanut butter would you force them to drive Uber while passengers eating peanut butter sandwich in the back? And tell them to "work on themselves"?

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

#57
Yeah, but most of that goes to...anyone?

Bueller?

THE LAWYERS!

> She was awarded $324,000 in damages and more than $800,000 in attorney fees and court costs, according to the arbitrator's award posted online by her attorneys.

That's from the CNN variant of the story.

To be fair, they likely earned it, in this case. It seems to have taken a while.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/business/uber-blind-passenger...

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

#58
I'd like to go out on a limb and say that I don't agree with the ADA. I don't think any private person or organization should be compelled to provide facilities or services for anyone else, regardless of what their need is.

I have no animus toward people with disabilities - I'm just saying that no one should be forced to help anyone else. If you want to do something for someone else's benefit, you should be free to do so, at your own expense. When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act. No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen.

When you help a friend, you are involved in his life. Because you're there, you get the reward of achieving a personal value of your own. You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life, which helps you be a better friend.

When you try to coerce a group, you have no knowledge of the actual impact your rule actually has on anyone. And because you're not in the loop, it takes a great deal longer to change your rules. This ends up hurting more people than you help.

EDIT: downvoting me won't change my mind, but it will make me try even harder to spread the above message

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

#59
post #2

Does an uber driver know when they accept a ride that the rider has a dog with them?

I hope not. It shouldn't show any information about their protected disabilities, just in the same way it shouldn't show their age, religion, race, etc. What would anyone legally do with that information?

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

#60

Well, as always, lawyers take the juicy bits, leaving the actual victim with peanuts. Justice, is increasingly costly.

I wouldn't say that $324,000 is "peanuts." Especially considering that, in most cases, that money is not taxed because it is compensation, not earnings.

The amount the plaintiff won in this case is equal to 8 or 9 years of (pre-tax!) mean or median income for a blind person in the US: https://nfb.org//images/nfb/publications/jbir/jbir15/jbir050...

Post reply on HN