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

331–340 of 502 posts

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

#331

Post by lotsofpulp »

unionpivo wrote: post #282
lotsofpulp wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The question is if this court considers Uber responsible because the driver is an employee, then how is the driver not an employee for all other purposes? Other courts have maintained the drivers are not employees. And usually, courts stay consistent unless over ruled by superior courts.

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

#332

Post by Ekaros »

wdn wrote: post #310
usbline wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is not the only issue. It is an extension to a bigger issue, cancelling rides. There are many time I have Uber driver cancelling my ride from the airport because my destination is not the big metro center, rather, just outside of it. The driver was quick to accept the request, then called and then cancel the ride. Of course, the driver would said the customer "request the cancellation". This wasted so much of pe…

This should be easily solved if the system were working correctly. That is independent contractors were able to make bid on ride request. Undesirable destination? Customer just has to offer price someone is willing to offer a service at. At some price point someone is willing to do the job.

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

#333

Post by asdff »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #182
tmpz22 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a victim of "vomit fraud" where the driver sends in fake photos from an identical model vehicle of interior damage and pockets the money. I now take photos of the interior of the car before and after. Uber charged me for the "damage" same-day and reversed the charges two days later after I sent them article after article on the issue and pointed out it was a Sunday noon drive not a late night Friday escapade. W…

Sometimes, it sounds like we should all have a 24/7 GoPro cameras attached and running all the time.

There needs to be some lighweight app so you can just stick your phone in your shirt pocket for the day and it would become your own body cam

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

#334

Post by asdff »

jariel wrote: post #270

"One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination." What is wrong with people? I can understand something like this maybe happening once? But that this happened 14 times makes me lose faith in people. Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops.

>Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops.

Case in point, how many people have been griping about wearing a cloth mask, like some toddler who refuses to put on pants.

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

#335

Post by jedberg »

buran77 wrote: post #286
jedberg wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> For a company of Uber's scale such an effort barely registers.

You have that backwards. For a company of Uber's scale, this is a major initiative. For a small company they can just code it up and put it in the app.

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

#336

Post by mumblemumble »

usbline wrote: post #319
amyjess wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the Americans With Disabilities Act tells them they have to.

ADA also says these accommodations need to be readily achievable. Considering the income level of people working at rideshares, it's really not achievable and extremely unfair.

Saying that Uber doesn't have to comply with ADA because they pay their employees (sorry, contractors) nowhere near enough money seems like one of those "two wrongs don't make a right" situations.

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

#337

Post by Ekaros »

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.

If the Uber drivers are independent contractors. Wouldn't they be a business under 15 employees, thus not required to be ADA compliant?

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

#338

Post by jedberg »

ggggtez wrote: post #290
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.

Well really they should pay the Uber driver until they passenger is fully departed, but right now passengers get upset if the driver doesn't end the ride the moment they arrive (and if they start the drive before actually departing), so the driver has to load and unload on their own time.

I try to make up for it by telling the driver to start the ride the moment I walk up, and letting them know not to end the ride until I've left, but not everyone does that.

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

#339

Post by Miner49er »

Ekaros wrote: post #337
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.

If the Uber drivers are independent contractors. Wouldn't they be a business under 15 employees, thus not required to be ADA compliant?

Well apparently not, or Uber would have won this court case, I think.

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

#340

Post by shagie »

vkou wrote: post #307
qaq wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in this setup a driver allergic to dogs should not be allowed to drive for Uber?

No, Uber simply needs to accommodate a passenger with a service dog, by assigning the closest non-allergic driver to them, and the driver not refusing service.

I would suggest that if the allergies are sufficient enough to reach disability, that instead of "Uber needs to assign the closest non-allergic driver" (because the ADA doesn't require that a passenger state that they have a service animal) ...

Rather, Uber needs to offer accommodations to drivers. Modification of the vehicle so that the driver and passenger areas are separate and the there is sufficient air filtration.

This way, Uber would be handling both disabilities appropriately with the ADA by providing the respective accommodations.

Post reply on HN