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

#281

Post by ehmmmmmmmm » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #240

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 If you create two classes of driver, one who has to follow the ADA and one who doesn't, you've just repealed the ADA.

No you haven't. ADA should be supporting people who have fears of animals as well, IMO. It's about supporting everyone, not just one class of disability.

For that matter, a driver with a severe back problem shouldn't be forced to help a disabled customer with lifting their luggage into the trunk. A different driver should be found. ADA should support both individuals in being safe.

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

#282

Post by unionpivo » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #150

teraflop wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then it is not clear to me why a driver that uses the Uber app to find passengers, who is not an Uber employee, would not be allowed to refuse a service animal.

> Then it is not clear to me why a driver that uses the Uber app to find passengers, who is not an Uber employee, would not be allowed to refuse a service animal.

Uber did try what you said as a defense, and they lost, so it seem courts think that because Uber is a huge company, with much more than 15 people, it's on them to find a way to be compliant with ADA.

Weather or not drivers are subcontractors or not doesn't even come to play.

Because lets face it. If they didn't thats such a huge hole, that in a lot of cases corporations would be able to structure themselves in a way that they could avoid that.

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

#283

Post by treis » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #105

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".

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.

It's not that simple. Allergies are disabilities too and they shouldn't be excluded from entire industries. Employers have to provide reasonable accomodations for employees with allergies

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

#284

Post by OJFord » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:21 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 apps need a way for me to say "I have a carseat" or "I have a service animal"

In the UK (and EU?) those are 'protected characteristics' that it'd be illegal to discriminate against. I suppose you could ask 'for information purposes', but you'd have to be prepared to defend yourself, proving that it didn't affect the service received.

> and then give a bonus to the driver for picking me up.

Like that. Of course people are free to think 'this driver was an unusually nice guy to me and went above and beyond to help with my wheelchair', or whatever, but it absolutely couldn't be required of the customer. You can't have a 'parent or guide dog user' surcharge.

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

#285

Post by ehmmmmmmmm » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

LocalH wrote: post #233

zachrip wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> fears of others

Fear of other people based on disability is discrimination. I have zero fear of blind people.

Fear of other species is not immoral. I'm afraid of snakes and alligators, and I'm just as afraid, if not much MORE afraid, of dogs, and my fears are justified by both hard data as well as past trauma.

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

#286

Post by buran77 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #167

snapetom wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Op is saying implementing that is a minor inconvenience for Uber. If they wanted you to be able to tell the driver, it would take them a couple of weeks.

I'd say OP is wrong. The Uber UX is localized into many languages. It probably takes them quite an effort to make any UI change, especially ones that require localization. Also, the change I'm proposing changes the fee structure as well. I'm sure they do deep analysis any time they change the fee structure. It would probably take a ton of effort to add what I suggest. I think they should do it, but it probably doesn'…

> quite an effort

This feels like a misrepresentation of the kind of effort required. For a company of Uber's scale such an effort barely registers. And they could go live with the change in selected markets in the interest of minimizing it even further. But at the end of the day this isn't a matter of effort but of reward, and Uber probably sees none.

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

#287

Post by cwhiz » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

elil17 wrote: post #229

EugeneOZ wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, after reading this I can't forget it. Not sure what kind of animal one needs to be to do this.

Well perhaps it is because Uber pays their drivers poverty wages. I can imagine a driver taking advantage of a passenger because they need food or shelter for themselves or their family. Obviously it’s cruel to do this to a blind passenger, but I think the fundamental moral problem is really with the decision makers at Uber not with the driver.

Uber lost $8.5 billion in 2019, $6.77 billion in 2020, and recently reported a $968 million loss in Q1 2021. As a company, Uber has lost around $35 billion total.

Which really begs the question of... who the heck is making money here, how, and why?

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

#288

Post by xmprt » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

scsilver wrote: post #129

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?

That at the end of the day, Uber sent a woman into terrible situation, creating a bunch of externalities that society has to bare. Society should have the right to identify those externalities and bring the companies attention to those externalities. If the company says "not my problem" the public should get to decide if they want to allow a company to blithely foist those externalities onto society. They have a lega…

I'm not sure how this could be fixed though. Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store.

Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'.

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

#289

Post by usbline » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

yarcob wrote: post #271

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 profit…

This is someone's personal property we're talking about. Should they forced to shuttle around drunken and incontinent people too? Why should anyone be coerced with being kicked off of a platform and losing (their possibly only) source of income because they don't want piss, shit, and vomit in their car?

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

#290

Post by ggggtez » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:26 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…

Are we going to offer a "bonus" to drivers that offer to drive old people, because they may take a little longer to get in the car?

If the difference between profit and ruin is an extra 60 seconds for someone to sit down, then maybe the real solution is to pay the drivers a living wage.