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

#101

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

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?

>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?

At my businesses, the instruction is to concede as I don't want to get involved in a costly legal fight. I don't see anyway for the business to come out ahead unless you have a recording and solid evidence of the person lying.

I don't imagine it's any different for Costco. If anything, it's worse since they have deeper pockets to go after for people looking for a fight.

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

#102

Post by keenreed » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #35

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…

You should take that into consideration before taking on a job that might require you to drive around dogs. As a country we decided long time ago, that people who require seeing-eye dogs shouldn't be subjected to substandard treatment by society - as was the case before the law protected the visually impaired. If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs.

Most Uber drivers did not "took a job". Uber drivers originally started as self-employed contractors. Part of that is ability to refuse some rides.

Most dog owners have no control over their animals. I have PTSD from dogs, if dog would touch me, I will go into panic attack, and it will not go well for anyone. It is question of safety.

So I have a question for you. As a driver, do I have a right to refuse a drive, if I am concerned that customer will start licking me?

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

#103

Post by anonymousab » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #82

lupire wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think a deathly allergy would qualify as a 'legitimate safety requirement'. There are also situations in which the ADA considers an allergy itself to be a disability, though the given examples are usually around food allergies.

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

#104

Post by jedberg » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #96

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".

Then they shouldn't be in the rideshare business. Or any job that requires direct contact with customers.

If you work in retail you don't have the choice to avoid someone with a service dog either. It's just easier to ask your coworker to take over for you.

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

#105

Post by Pfhreak » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #96

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".

Because service animals are protected under the ADA. If folks could unilaterally reject working around service animals, we'd put the folks most at need at a significant detriment.

If you work in a customer facing capacity, you should be prepared to encounter service animals, full stop.

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

#106

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #85

lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Hah, try it at a hotel that charges pet cleaning fees. Or limits the number of animals in a room. It's 99% sufficient at Costco, because the cost is low of not getting in. When you're looking at shelling out money for a pet fee or not having to pay for pet boarding or pet sitters at home, suddenly 10%+ of the population has service animals.

>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.

It's not a problem necessarily, but you can sort of tell who is and isn't lying about service animals, at least by the discrepancy in total numbers and which ones are coming in with the badges and vests (indicating they don't know about actual ADA laws).

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

#107

Post by Miner49er » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

anonymousab wrote: post #103

Miner49er wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think a deathly allergy would qualify as a 'legitimate safety requirement'. There are also situations in which the ADA considers an allergy itself to be a disability, though the given examples are usually around food allergies.

I don't see that language anywhere except for the case of miniature horses?

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

#108

Post by shagie » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #96

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".

That is an issue for uber to work on dealing with - it is not an issue for the person with the disability that needs the service animal.

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.

Being an "independent contractor" doesn't absolve someone from the ADA.

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

#109

Post by teraflop » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:36 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?

If a company has fewer than 15 employees, it's exempt from the ADA's requirements.

If it has 15 employees or more, then the law assumes that it's reasonable for the company to provide service (e.g. by reassigning a non-allergic employee to work with a customer who has a service dog) except where it would demonstrably create an undue hardship.

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

#110

Post by bonzini » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:36 PM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #96

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".

> What if they're allergic, or deathly afraid of dogs?

If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown people for a living, just like someone who's deathly afraid of blood probably won't be a surgeon.

Allergy could be handled by Uber, who should be provided by the driver with a medical certification of the allergy and shouldn't even show that car to the blind customer (if the ADA allows that).

I think the driver shouldn't be able to see that the customer has a service dog, but I agree that they should get a compensation from Uber for doing that ride.