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

#271

Post by yarcob » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:08 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…

I think you are giving service providers way too much leeway.

Service providers should offer their service to everyone, not just to "easy" customers. Service providers should not reject you because you are disabled, because you have a child, because you have a certain religion, or whatever else is the problem.

If someone is in the business of transporting people, they shouldn't be allowed to just pick the most profitable customers. Because if you allow that, everyone will try to undercut the competitors prices to get the "good" customers, and nobody will bother to offer services to the not so profitable customers.

There's nothing wrong with needing some special accomodations, and you shouldn't have to apologise to the driver for taking two minutes to fasten a child seat.

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

#272

Post by stefan_ » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

passivate wrote: post #231

stefan_ wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thats what Uber likes to pretend, but at the end of the day they are the ones charging my credit card.

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

#273

Post by unionpivo » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

tgv wrote: post #235

0xEFF wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

more like several people for couple of months.

> What's the risk they were taking? They wouldn't have taken the case if the risk of losing was high?

The fact the Uber has all the money in the world to hire good layers. And a motive to make it seem like its not directly them but their subcontractors problem, that is bigger than this single case.

In such cases, there is no such thing as a sure thing.

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

#274

Post by spuz » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #232

fuzzer37 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no perfect solution to this problem, however, people in general - even those who enforce the law - tend to be flexible. The situation described in the article describes a person who was badly treated by Uber drivers and would probably have tolerated a service in which the drivers treated her like anyone else even if technically Uber did not tick every single box of the ADA. It might even be counter productive to force Uber to provide a non-discriminatory service to everybody everywhere.

The law sets a high standard that we should all strive to meet but the courts tend to be full plaintiffs who have been wronged by companies failing to provide even the bare-minimum service. This appears to be the case here and we should probably focus on how to grasp the low hanging fruit before trying to come up with the "perfect" solution.

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

#275

Post by shagie » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #220

aksss wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 negativ…

> A reasonable accommodation could be that driver's with significant animal allergies don't need to pick up passenger's with dogs.

I would put the burden the other way around. Drivers that have significant animal allergies that reach the threshold of a disability should be provided an accommodation of a separator between the passenger area and the driver area with sufficient air filtration.

Thus, the driver would still be able to pick up passengers that have a service animal even with allergies that extend to the point of being a disability.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe that fear of dogs counts as a disability.

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

#276

Post by julienb_sea » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #172

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…

I don't think Uber/Lyft wants to take the responsibility of ADA compliance, because that is implying that their drivers are employees.

What is the basis by which you are claiming ADA compliance implies their drivers are employees? Providing usable service for ADA customers can and should be accomplished regardless of Uber/Lyft's driver contracting model.

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

#277

Post by orthecreedence » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

NullPrefix wrote: post #152

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's unfair to hand-wave a deathly fear of something away as "just work on urself lol." PTSD is a real thing, and it's not as easy as a handful of video chats with a therapist. Not to mention, someone driving for Uber probably doesn't have the resources to be in therapy in the first place.

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

#278

Post by cortesoft » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

Bedon292 wrote: post #251

cortesoft wrote: post #238

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

You can ask two specific questions about the presence of an animal. "Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability?" and "What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?" I would think Uber would want to handle those sort of compliance issues before the driver gets there. As you don't want the driver to get something wrong. And it just makes things smoother for everyone. Not sure if they can req…

Yeah, I think the issue is that you can't require the rider to say they have a service dog ahead of time.

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

#279

Post by yarcob » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #262

1023bytes wrote: post #12

She didn't get $1.1m, the settlement was $324,000 in damages plus legal expenses of $805,313. That kind of changes the narrative in my opinion.

$324,000/ 14 denied rides = $23k in damages per denied ride. She must be a much bigger deal than I am.

She lost her job and probably a lot of time fighting this court case. I don't think breaking it down per ride is a good way to look at it.

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

#280

Post by ashtonbaker » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

fuzzer37 wrote: post #180

Miner49er wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. IANAL, but I don't think it is that simple. Small towns sometimes only have one driver at a time. If there's one driver, they _have_ to take a service animal, by law. Allergy or fear of dogs is not good enough. Admittedly the liability for the dri…

> 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?

> Is a waiter with a really bad peanut allergy required to serve a guest a dish with peanuts in it?

I'm having a hard time constructing a scenario in which the only way to accommodate a guest with a disability to the same level as other guests is for a waiter with a peanut allergy to serve a dish with peanuts in it.

In this hypothetical restaurant, presumably the waiter cannot serve this dish to /any/ guests. And the ADA doesn't entitle you to have a restaurant make food to your specifications, as far as I know.