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

#211

Post by fuzzer37 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #190

fuzzer37 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Allergy or fear of dogs is not good enough. I'm interested in this part. This seems to be counterintuitive. Is a waiter with a really bad peanut allergy required to serve a guest a dish with peanuts in it? Why does the clients (legitimate) health concerns override the drivers (also legitimate) health issues?

Well, I think the ADA only applies to businesses with more then 15 employees. The idea is that if you have a business that large, even if one person has a problem with dogs, not all 15 (or more) will, so you should be able to accommodate and provide service. So in your example, the business should have a different waiter/waitress provide service.

Ah, I see. That seems reasonable, honestly. So in that case, Uber should be able to just assign another driver. But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. However, I don't think Uber should be forced to provide service just because they technically can. If there are no drivers at all in your area, they'll tell you that (Or charge an exorbitant fee for someone to drive in) and you won't be able to take an Uber. It's not a requirement that they give you a ride no matter what.

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

#212

Post by Ansil849 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #166

Unless Uber fixes this, it seems like a way to get some money if you have a disability. 1) Train or buy a service dog for your disability. 2) Request an Uber with your service dog, record what happens when the driver shows up. Assuming Uber doesn't fix this, many drivers will probably deny service. 3) Repeat a couple dozen times. 4) Contact a lawyer 5) Profit?

This is an extremely callous comment.

Discrimination happens regularly to those with disabilities without needing to go out of their way to concoct such a scenario - it happens organically every day, due to people like that Uber driver mentioned ("One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination.") being trash.

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

#213

Post by paulcole » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

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 real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in their app

No. The real problem is that a person with a disability was denied service in violation of the ADA.

There's no setting in the app that prevents a driver from saying (as they should), "Get in."

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

#214

Post by jdavis703 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

Bedon292 wrote: post #176

Causality1 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Seems rather simple: Let drivers with allergies put that in their profile. Let riders put that they have a service animal in. And the system just doesn't pair them together. And now that the system knows someone has a service animal you can automatically review any cancelations by the driver and look for problems. I am actually kind of surprised that there isn't some review system already in place when a driver ends…

I noticed a trend where lots of Uber drivers marked themselves as deaf, but really just didn’t communicate in English fluently. I would imagine drivers would similarly claim to be allergic to get around having to transport service animals.

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

#215

Post by slig » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #104

Causality1 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most people in the "rideshare business" are working there because they don't have a better alternative.

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

#216

Post by Miner49er » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #192

shuntress wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you might kind of be missing the point here... Uber should have to deal with this systemically because it is shitty to just leave it up to the drivers. Please note that in your example here, it is also shitty for the rider who is expecting to be driven somewhere safely.

Yes, I agree with you, Uber should have to deal with it. A lot of people in this thread are arguing that the driver should be forced to suck it up and I think that's shitty for both the driver's and rider's safety.

I don't see much of an other option for Uber if they want to fix this.

It's not uncommon for small towns to have one Uber driver going at certain times. Well that driver can't be the only driver around if they aren't going to take service animals. So Uber would have to tell them that they can't drive unless they are willing to take service animals or there is another driver around that is willing to.

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

#217

Post by Bedon292 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

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.

Emotional Support animals are not by default considered service animals by the ADA. (IANAL and State / Local laws may say different things.) They must be trained to perform at least one specific task in order to qualify as a service animal under the ADA. You are allowed to ask two specific questions about dogs: "Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability?" and "What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?" It seems like something that Uber could allow a user to input, and prevent their drivers from rejecting those users for the presence of the animal.

Animals do always have to be under control of the owner though, so if one is not under control that is an acceptable reason to reject them.

And I believe the latest guidance is that basically only dogs fall under the service animal category, so random other animals people use for emotional support would not qualify either. The exception seems to be miniature horses for specific limited cases.

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

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

#218

Post by shagie » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

aksss wrote: post #195

shagie wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does the analogy of different rooms translate to vehicles? A different vehicle?

If the driver is unable to handle the service for a reason related to the disability (e.g. wheelchair, service animal), they need to make the appropriate accommodations. In this case, it would probably be to have Uber dispatch another driver who is able to provide the service.

That's how it works for traditional taxi companies. Uber and Lyft, not being "traditional" taxi companies doesn't exempt them from needing to follow the same rules.

https://www.thetransportationalliance.org/news/adanotice.pdf

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

#219

Post by Miner49er » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

fuzzer37 wrote: post #211

Miner49er wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think the ADA only applies to businesses with more then 15 employees. The idea is that if you have a business that large, even if one person has a problem with dogs, not all 15 (or more) will, so you should be able to accommodate and provide service. So in your example, the business should have a different waiter/waitress provide service.

Ah, I see. That seems reasonable, honestly. So in that case, Uber should be able to just assign another driver. But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. However, I don't think Uber should be forced to provide service just because they technically can. If there are no drivers at all in your area, they'll tell you that (Or charge an exorbitant fee for someone to drive in) and…

> But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands.

Yeah in this case, a driver may have to take a service dog even if they have fear or an allergy, or Uber could be sued again. IANAL, but this is my understanding.

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

#220

Post by ncallaway » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

aksss wrote: post #195

shagie wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does the analogy of different rooms translate to vehicles? A different vehicle?

Uber could assign a different vehicle to pick up the passenger's that need to transport a service animal, so long as it doesn't significantly impact their service times.

A reasonable accommodation could be that driver's with significant animal allergies don't need to pick up passenger's with dogs. If a significant portion of their driver fleet has significant animal allergies, such that it would significantly negatively impact the response time for passenger's that need dogs, Uber would need to find a different reasonable accommodation.