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

151–160 of 502 posts

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

#151

Post by arenaninja »

valuearb wrote: post #120
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…

It's not the service animals that are the problem, is the "emotional support" animals, or more specifically, their owners.

I was out for breakfast for the first time since the pandemic started this weekend (I'm fully vaccinated now) and in walks a guy with a dog sporting a "Service Animal" sash that in tiny letters said "emotional support". I was paralyzed - I was traumatized by my interactions with dogs when I was a kid; where's my say in having untrained animals in my vicinity? This kind of shit needs to be ended but there should be NO issue with blind people with actual service animals receiving service anywhere

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

#152

Post by NullPrefix »

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #56
NullPrefix wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Fear of dogs is psychological, you can work it out through therapy. Peanut allergies are physiological, words wouldn't really help you there.

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

#153

Post by ehmmmmmmmm »

shuntress wrote: post #144
ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're building a new building you should be required to have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't really a thing, so it's okay to require them. If you have an old building it's on the government to provide the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain buildings to stan…

I don't think there was anyone signed up as a driver with Uber before the ADA existed but for the sake of argument, we can assume those people exist. Yes, I agree that they should receive government-funded training that teaches them to tolerate a service dog in their car. Every who signs up to be an Uber driver after the signing of the ADA must be capable of transporting service dogs.

That kind of policy means that people with PTSD from dogs who are desperate for a job will sign up and WILL experience PTSD and WILL endanger riders.

It's a shitty policy IMO.

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

#154

Post by plank_time »

somethingwitty1 wrote: post #146
valuearb wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that the drivers didn't know what they were doing to this woman was wrong? Or are you claiming Uber told the drivers to mistreat her?

I think they are more generally saying that drivers for these ride share companies aren't aware of the risks that the company is passing on to them. They used the example that quite a few drivers have standard insurance (rather than one that covers ride-sharing). I don't think they were claiming the drivers didn't know what they were doing in that they were mistreating her, but more that they weren't aware of the law…

Uber supplies the insurance while the driver is driving for Uber.

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

#155

Post by ARandumGuy »

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…

If disability access is not legally required, many businesses just won't bother. Economically, it often doesn't make sense to spend money to accommodate a small percentage of your potential customer base. Even if it does make sense, many people just don't bother, often through simple ignorance.

This means that, without legally required obligations, disabled people become second class citizens. The places they can go and the businesses they can patronize are determined entirely on the whims of other people. This means that they require more help from caregivers for basic day to day functioning, and can prevent them from making their own contributions to society.

Your argument is saying that the desires of businesses are more important then the ability of disabled people to participate in society. It is a zero sum game. And you're free to have your own opinion on the matter, but don't be surprised when people consider your stance to be heartless.

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

#156

Post by eloisant »

valuearb wrote: post #120
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…

It's not the service animals that are the problem, is the "emotional support" animals, or more specifically, their owners.

The article is specifically about a blind person, so clearly service animals are not well accepted by many Uber drivers.

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

#157

Post by akiselev »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #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...

The awards were separate, one for damages and another for services rendered by her legal team. She could have won the damages and received nothing for the rest, in which case she would be net negative 500k or so.

It doesn't look like an ambulance chaser case where the she agreed to give the lawyers 2/3 of the damages. Does go to show you how crazy expensive real litigation is.

From the document her team posted:

> She is awarded the relief requested in her Post-Hearing Brief, including her damages in the amount of $324,000 plus attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs in the amount of $805,313.45 which, though high, reflects the high quality of legal work done in this case.

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

#158

Post by lotsofpulp »

shagie wrote: post #148
valuearb wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem with the government paying for ADA accommodations, and all of us sharing in the tax burden for them. Why should their costs be forced on a narrow group of businesses in unequal ways?

This is how it works for other companies... though not the government paying for ADA. Taxi companies have vehicles equipped for wheelchairs and other disabilities. They tend to be unprofitable to operate - but they have them. The reduction or loss of a profit on those fares is made up for by the taxi company, as a whole, subsidizing it from the increased prices for the rest of the fares. It isn't necessary for this t…

It does benefits bigger organizations that have more of an ability to absorb higher costs than small businesses and startups, just like any other regulatory burden.

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

#159

Post by shuntress »

fastball wrote: post #97
shuntress wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not saying the company is necessarily at fault.

What I am saying is that I deal with the company not the individual (especially in this case as that is literally Uber's entire business).

If an Uber drive assaults, injures, and robs me I expect Uber to get back to me with "We have brought this matter to the appropriate authorities please follow up with [individual] at [my local police]" rather than "That wholly independent contractor's name is [driver name]. Good luck"

edit: I would also expect a good company to cover any expenses I incur from the incident as well as replace stolen property.

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

#160

Post by ehmmmmmmmm »

adoxyz wrote: post #141
ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the law is written doesn't change the fact that driving on highway with peanut butter allergy is life-threatening, and driving on highway with PTSD to a stimulus in the car is also life-threatening.

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.

Again, the law doesn't precede science, and doesn't change the fact that it's going to be life-threatening.

You can quote the law all you want, but if you're blind and someone with PTSD is driving (and because they don't have much of a choice job-wise) you're going to be in grave danger.

If you don't want to be in grave danger, speak out against this law. End of story.

Post reply on HN