Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 502 posts

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

#91

Post by adoxyz »

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #66
adoxyz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not that I plan to, but if I did, I'd be able to pick up a lot of the slack of rides without dogs so that other drivers could pick up the dog rides. I'm sure many drivers are more than willing. I don't see how this isn't a win-win for them to allow it but give each driver a preference.

Because it's discrimination against people with disabilities and per the ADA illegal.

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

#92

Post by snurfer »

jagger27 wrote: post #23
snurfer wrote: post #18

Most of the money went to the attorneys. "Irving took legal action against Uber, resulting in an arbitrator this month awarding her $324,000 in damages plus legal expenses of $805,313" https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-drivers-re...

Can you successfully fight Uber’s über legal team for under a million? Seems cheap to me.

I guess it depends on how you define "successfully".

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

#93

Post by sorokod »

jedberg wrote: post #50

The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in their app. As someone who takes rideshare with a small child who needs a car seat, I've had similar issues. A person with a dog will need extra time getting in and out, and the driver will need extra time to clean the car and remove any dog hair or other stains or spots. A person with a carseat like myself needs extra time to get into and out of the car wh…

The way you phrase it makes it sound like a UI issue.

It is probably more accurate to say that Uber chooses to not provide this sort of functionality.

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

#94

Post by kbar13 »

lacker wrote: post #78

I'm surprised that the law requires you to allow dogs in your car. It's one thing for a public space, but for a private service it seems like it should be okay to have a no-dogs-allowed rule.

your choice here is that you dont have to drive for rideshare, knowing that you don't want dogs in the car. because the ability to choose goes both ways. and because the industry is unregulated, the company isn't required to do anything like add a flag for a driver to avoid having to pick up dogs

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

#95

Post by Pfhreak »

mlyle wrote: post #72
Pfhreak wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? I worked at a Costco for a few years, these two questions were drilled into us over and over and over and over. People tried to bring dogs into Costco all the time, and we'd ask these two (and only these two) questions. Occasionally, some new employee or someone who was grumpy would go of…

Gah. Humans are so annoying sometimes, aren't they? Did the legally allowed questions allow you to exclude the dog very often, or did you pretty much have to concede the matter most of the time?

I never really tried to exclude dogs. Sometimes folks would say, "Oh, no, this isn't a service dog." and we'd ask them to not bring the animal inside.

If someone said yes, and explained a task, then let them through. I'd rather allow an animal that wasn't actually a service dog than disallow one that was.

If a dog becomes disruptive, you can ask its owner to leave.

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

#96

Post by Causality1 »

jedberg wrote: post #50

The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in their app. As someone who takes rideshare with a small child who needs a car seat, I've had similar issues. A person with a dog will need extra time getting in and out, and the driver will need extra time to clean the car and remove any dog hair or other stains or spots. A person with a carseat like myself needs extra time to get into and out of the car wh…

Why shouldn't they have the option to reject the ride? What if they're allergic, or deathly afraid of dogs? I have a friend like that. Anything bigger than a chihuahua and she'd probably flee the vehicle before driving it anywhere.

Being able to reject work you can't handle seems like the one silver lining of being "independent contractors".

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

#97

Post by fastball »

shuntress wrote: post #86
fastball wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So there is absolutely nothing a company can do to absolve themselves of the poor behavior of employees? By that system, Uber would still be at fault if they explicitly told all drivers "you are not allowed to deny service to someone with a service dog under any circumstances", and a driver did anyway.

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

#98

Post by flowerlad »

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…

This is not about "helping". This is about illegal discrimination. When you open a service to the public then you can't refuse it to someone on the basis of their disability. (Or race, or gender, or sexual orientation.)

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

#99

Post by jedberg »

sorokod wrote: post #93
jedberg wrote: post #50

The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in their app. As someone who takes rideshare with a small child who needs a car seat, I've had similar issues. A person with a dog will need extra time getting in and out, and the driver will need extra time to clean the car and remove any dog hair or other stains or spots. A person with a carseat like myself needs extra time to get into and out of the car wh…

The way you phrase it makes it sound like a UI issue. It is probably more accurate to say that Uber chooses to not provide this sort of functionality.

I mean, I'd call it a UX issue, where the U here is both the driver and the passenger. There is no way for me to tell the driver I have a car seat, and there is no way for the driver to get extra compensation for it. Now that they've added tipping I can at least tip them extra, but they don't know that until after they give me a bad rating for "wasting their time".

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

#100

Post by anoonmoose »

lupire wrote: post #75
Pfhreak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are providing rides as a business, you must be willing to accept seeing eye dogs. If you cannot meet this qualification, then your options are limited. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like you might not want to own a driving business or you may want to work with your employer to accommodate your needs. (e.g. by dispatching another driver, etc.)

Drivers are not a "business". They are laborers for Uber, which is the business.

That's how it should be, that is not how it is.
Post reply on HN