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

#231

Post by passivate » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

stefan_ wrote: post #206

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?

Why does it matter? I hired Uber; if they hire contractors to do their job, that doesn't matter to me. If it goes wrong, I'm still gonna sue Uber.

I think that the general point people are making is that Uber is like Ebay - a platform. If a seller on Ebay sells you a busted iphone, Ebay has a 'buyer protection' policy to help you seek redress. Maybe Uber needs to have some of that as well.

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

#232

Post by duskwuff » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:38 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…

> It's not a requirement that they give you a ride no matter what.

But it is a requirement that they not discriminate against customers with disabilities. Charging an "exorbitant fee" for a driver who would tolerate a service animal would be a form of discrimination, even if that fee was the organic result of a pricing algorithm.

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

#233

Post by LocalH » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

zachrip wrote: post #202

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is good. PTSD should be added to that as well. Dogs send me into panic and it would be a bad idea for the law to force me to drive against it. I mean, I would because it's the law, and as a result, you would be in danger.

Couldn't this result in anyone just abusing this system when they don't want to drive with service dogs in the car?

IMO that's not a valid reason to ignore deep-seated fears of others.

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

#234

Post by Bedon292 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

jonfw wrote: post #221

Bedon292 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What's the incentive for a driver not to mark that they have allergies? You're essentially just giving them a checkbox "I don't want to deal with people who have service animals"

As long as it is not a large enough percentage of drivers to significantly affect the service times of those riders, does it actually matter? I mean, morally I don't think they should. However, those are probably more likely to be the people who were going to cause problems like this article talks about anyways. So it would still probably result in better experience for everyone.

If 99% of drivers check that box, and it affects service times, then they will have to come up with some other option to accommodate the drivers. Prove the allergies or something, since some of them are certainly lying with prevalence being 10-20% in the US. And it would have to be a best effort, the rider with a true service animal is legally protected and a driver with allergies or fear is not a legal reason to reject service altogether.

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

#235

Post by tgv » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

0xEFF wrote: post #161

marshmallow_12 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that definitely changes the narrative. 800k in legal expenses! That's a lot of money. The headline should be "lawyers make 800k by suing uber". How was the damage calculated by the way?

It’s not that much. It’s about 1600 hours of work which seems like the right amount taking on Uber and their lawyers. Also factor in the risk of working 1600 hours and getting paid nothing for it if the case was lost.

1600 hours is 9 months at 40hr/week. What's the risk they were taking? They wouldn't have taken the case if the risk of losing was high, so their E(X) was at least 250k.

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

#236

Post by LocalH » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

Bedon292 wrote: post #225

arenaninja wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Legally an actual service animal must be trained. Emotional support, for a variety of reasons including things like PTSD and anxiety attacks, is a completely valid use of service animals. How do you know they were not trained? If they were misbehaving, that's reason for them to be rejected, training or not. If not, legally allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to peop…

>If not, legally allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals.

This should change. Especially on the allergy front. Forcing someone to suffer an allergic reaction because a customer has a service dog is immoral.

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

#237

Post by ehmmmmmmmm » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

zachrip wrote: post #202

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is good. PTSD should be added to that as well. Dogs send me into panic and it would be a bad idea for the law to force me to drive against it. I mean, I would because it's the law, and as a result, you would be in danger.

Couldn't this result in anyone just abusing this system when they don't want to drive with service dogs in the car?

I don't think the system would be abused that much, especially if Uber could offer a little extra financial reward to the driver for taking the service dog, to the extent necessary that people with service dogs get the same level of wait times and service.

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

#238

Post by cortesoft » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:42 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…

> 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.

I don't think you are allowed to require riders to say they have a service animal when requesting a ride.

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

#239

Post by elil17 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #112

throwaway4good wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers gotta eat so they can chase them ambulances ...

It seems like a lot, but if they are only paid when they win, the price has to take into account the risk they are taking by going up against a company like Uber that has a huge vested interest in not losing cases like this. If their chance of success going in is 25%, expenses are $100k, 2-3 lawyers contributed etc. it doesn’t seem like such a case of highway robbery (no idea if these numbers are realistic)

Their chances of success going in are much, much higher. Law firms won’t take a case unless they think they can get something out of it, like a cash settlement. This particular case was very very strong. $100k expenses are realistic, but only because many law firms choose to have extravagant offices and ridiculous corporate retreats. The firm is billing $500/hour - that may be the going rate, but it doesn’t change the fact that lawyers get rich while the people they’re supposed to represent aren’t fairly compensated for the harm that is done to them. The $1.1m was supposed to represent the damage that the canceled Uber rides did to her career, and now that’s damage that will never fully be made up to her.

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

#240

Post by pessimizer » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #149

bonzini wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 driv…

> If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown people for a living Not everyone has a hundred companies trying to hire them. They have to take any job they can get to pay their food and electricity and mortgage and health insurance and child support and all that bullshit. And some of those people have PTSD from dogs.

Even if there are no jobs in your area other than dog groomers and you desperately need a job, if you have PTSD from dogs, you can't be a dog groomer.

If you create two classes of driver, one who has to follow the ADA and one who doesn't, you've just repealed the ADA.