Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by orf » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

maxharris wrote: post #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 d…

> 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.

> You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life, which helps you be a better friend.

> This ends up hurting more people than you help.

What an absolutely mind numblingly self centered and brain-dead take.

It's got nothing to do with the "noble act" or other such nonsense. They are there so that people with disabilities don't end up living a second class existence, locked out of large parts of modern life, because it is not economically sensible to add disabled access to your building or service for the very small percentage of potential customers who need it.

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

#82

Post by Miner49er » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #70

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #62

It was downvoted below, but reposting here because this is something that I think should be seen as it comes up often: >> "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…

The ADA applies to workers too. A dog allergy is a disability.

It has been ruled that fear of dogs or allergies to dogs is not sufficient reason to deny service to someone with a service dog.

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

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

#83

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #54

YawningAngel wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

ADA is a federal law, so I don't think it would make any difference within the US in different jurisdictions.

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

#84

Post by ARandumGuy » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #24

> "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…

Then the business needs to find some way to accommodate both the employee and the customer. In Uber's case, the only requirement is that riders with guide dogs should be able to get a ride in the same time window as any other rider, at the same price. The ADA does not require that every driver has to drive guide dogs. It's up to Uber to figure out a solution, and they should have to pay up until they implement one.

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

#85

Post by Pfhreak » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

mlyle wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone shows up with something that couldn't legally be a service animal (e.g. a bunny) or cannot respond adequately as to how the dog has been trained to perform a specific task, then they may have grounds to refuse to admit the dog. https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA? A. No. These terms ar…

I’m familiar with those guidelines, but effectively, anyone can say anything, and the last sentence shows that you basically have to take their word for it (unless you want to risk getting involved in a costly legal matter). I know you don’t have to take lizards as service animals, but you do basically have to take chihuahuas or Pomeranians or pit bulls or Rottweilers or whatever as service dogs, and maybe miniature…

Yes, you do have to take their word for it. If the dog is disruptive (e.g. barking or not housetrained), you can ask them to leave. The dog must be under control by the owner at all times. Dogs must (generally) remain on the floor or on the owner (and not in a shopping cart). Seating, food, drink, and other amenities are for the person, not the dog.

In practice, asking these two questions and understanding the limits of where you can intervene is sufficient in 99% of cases.

> you do basically have to take chihuahuas or Pomeranians or pit bulls or Rottweilers or whatever as service dogs

Why is this a problem? Different breeds have different characteristics, and there are a variety of reasons to have a service dog -- from PTSD to blindness to diabetes.

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

#86

Post by shuntress » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #25

bgorman wrote: post #15

I think anyone who has taken Uber and Lyft a lot knows that they allow drivers to abuse the system for their benefit, with no recourse for riders. A few incidents that have bothered me: 1. Having an Uber refuse to take me to the airport from downtown Chicago 2. Lyft not giving me an automatic refund for a pickup in SOMA when the driver had been heading down 101 for 10 minutes and was showing no signs of turning aroun…

So the bad behavior is on the part of the drivers, not the company, but you prefer the company to get punished?

The drivers represent the company and all interactions with the driver are setup through the company. So, yes.

ie: If a driver snatches my backpack and drives away, I expect Uber to replace/return what was stolen from me by their contractor. Not for them to just tell me to take a hike and deal with it myself.

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

#87

Post by shagie » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #70

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #62

It was downvoted below, but reposting here because this is something that I think should be seen as it comes up often: >> "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…

The ADA applies to workers too. A dog allergy is a disability.

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.

If the person has a dog allergy, Uber should make the appropriate accommodations (possibly by allowing them to assign another driver to the fare) - however, they cannot refuse the fare.

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

#88

Post by Kharvok » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #70

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #62

It was downvoted below, but reposting here because this is something that I think should be seen as it comes up often: >> "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…

The ADA applies to workers too. A dog allergy is a disability.

This is specifically addressed in updated guidance from 2010.

"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."

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

#89

Post by EugeneOZ » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

throwaway4good wrote: post #51

A blind woman who was refused rides on 14 occasions - did this happen only to her? Or is it a broaded problem ... I cannot imagine she would be the only blind person taking an uber ...

Maybe not everyone is brave enough to sue giants? Look at the lawyers share size.

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

#90

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

shotta wrote: post #74

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #62

It was downvoted below, but reposting here because this is something that I think should be seen as it comes up often: >> "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…

Wouldn’t someone with a severe allergy to dogs also be covered under ADA?

> Wouldn’t someone with a severe allergy to dogs also be covered under ADA?

Sure, which clearly matters of Uber drivers are employees, but less so if they are independent service providers.