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

#341

Post by jedberg » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:22 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…

I agree with you, but the issue is that the Uber driver doesn't have control over it. If the driver were in charge, they would make their policy that the ride starts on arrival of the passenger and ends on departure of the passenger. But Uber doesn't do that -- they start the ride when the car moves and ends it when the car stops at the destination. So the driver loads and unloads on their own time. They aren't compensated for differences in accommodations per passenger.

I try to make up for this by telling the driver to start the ride the moment I arrive and not end until I leave, but not everyone does that.

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

#342

Post by Pfhreak » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #283

Pfhreak wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It really is that simple. If you have allergies, you can ask your employer for reasonable accommodations. But you should anticipate that you have to come into contact with a service dog periodically.

Most employers understand this, and will figure out how to make it work (ensuring there is someone else available/on shift, etc.) If you are an Uber driver, Uber is not your employer (though they should be, imo). Prop 28 was about issues like this, but now we're expecting drivers to understand and comply with ADA regulations as individuals rather than at the corporate level.

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

#343

Post by dasil003 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:23 PM UTC

_wp3r wrote: post #329

yarcob wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh you mean like a licensing system that requires drivers to pick up all passengers? /s HAAS Act '37 NYC TLC '71 Operation Refusal '98 Not that NY has it exactly right, but at least there was some structure. The entire business model of Uber is regulation avoidance. They did not "distrupt" any business they just did as you said and stole all the profitable easy routes/riders, avoided pricing regulations, and driver c…

It's a convenient narrative, but if you ever tried getting a cab in the Sunset in 2005 you'd know that at least in some places Uber dramatically improved the ability to get equal opportunity transportation.

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

#344

Post by Miner49er » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

R0b0t1 wrote: post #317

Miner49er wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I am seriously doubting an allergic driver would be forced to take a passenger with a dog. Their immediate right to life trumps the ADA. There's more interesting arguments to be made, like you can't ask the driver to provide proof of their allergies, and so on.

Does there exist such a thing as a life threatening allergy to dogs?

The rules are pretty clear that an allergy isn't a good enough reason to deny service, but it says that Uber should try and accommodate employees that don't want to be around dogs for whatever reason: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

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

#345

Post by jedberg » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

slig wrote: post #215

jedberg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, I sympathize with them, but that's no excuse. If you can't stand blood you don't become a janitor at a hospital. If you can't stand raw meat you don't become a janitor at butcher shop.

There are other ways to drive a car for money that don't involve interacting with people and their possible service animals.

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

#346

Post by Pfhreak » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #106

Pfhreak wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you do have to take their word for it. If the dog is disruptive (e.g. barking or not housetrained), you can ask them to leave. The dog must be under control by the owner at all times. Dogs must (generally) remain on the floor or on the owner (and not in a shopping cart). Seating, food, drink, and other amenities are for the person, not the dog. In practice, asking these two questions and understanding the limits…

>In practice, asking these two questions and understanding the limits of where you can intervene is sufficient in 99% of cases. Hah, try it at a hotel that charges pet cleaning fees. Or limits the number of animals in a room. It's 99% sufficient at Costco, because the cost is low of not getting in. When you're looking at shelling out money for a pet fee or not having to pay for pet boarding or pet sitters at home, su…

Amortize the costs of the liars across the base cost of the room. It's really not that many people who will lie about it.

Some folks end up paying a little more on average and some people cheat and pay a little less, but the folks who need service animal accommodations don't get accosted by desk clerks. Sounds like a win to me.

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

#347

Post by lebuffon » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

The elephant in the room is that some cultures consider dogs unclean. What to do when you as the driver, are a member of that culture and the rider wants to bring a dog into your taxi.

I suspect a royal chaos ensues...

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

#348

Post by CydeWeys » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

rPlayer6554 wrote: post #318

techsupporter wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, yes? If their allergies are such to the point that they cannot be physically in the presence of a service animal for any length of time, they may be required to decline the fare and the income. We impose a lot of duties on people who are employed in the service of the general public. Humans are messy, unpredictable, inconsistent beings with unique needs so, yes, it is possible that two humans will be a…

I think you said yes to the parent comment but are not actually saying yes. Saying that "people with dog allergies cannot drive with Uber" is discrimination; allergies are also legally considered disabilities under the ADA[0]. Plus why would it be nessary if only a small portion of people have animals, and an even smaller portion need them for disabilities? What should happen is allow drivers to get a doctor's note t…

And Uber has been forced to pay up the $1.1M precisely because they haven't bothered to make any of these reasonable accommodations.

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

#349

Post by John23832 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

core-questions wrote: post #183

Brian_K_White wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this change anything? If someone has a problem with dogs, or anything else, then they are not qualified to perform a job that requires interacting with dogs, or whatever their particular disability involves. They aren't being denied a right to work out of discrimination or prejudice. They simply can't do that job. Here's the difference between that and prejudicial discrimination: If someone does have either…

> Don't take a job serving the public if you only like some people and not others. Seems like this logic doesn't apply to payment processors, web hosts, and anyone else who doesn't want to deal with free speech that they find offensive. Bake the cake, right?

Payment processors, webhosts, etc (I assume you're alluding a lot of the alt-right sights being removed from those platforms) have in practice refused to serve customers that expose them to legal culpability. There's a clear difference.

Yes. Bake the cake. The only legal culpability is to NOT do so.

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

#350

Post by bondolo » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #10

> It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees. Another example of how rideshare companies attempt to offload risk and liability onto individual drivers who are generally unprepared and unaware that this is happening. Insurance is a more important example (most rideshare drivers are not properly insured), but this…

Instead Uber assisted drivers who had often had many complaints against them to remain on the platform and tried to mischaracterize the reasons why service was denied.

They are also already subject to "secret shopper" type monitoring under their earlier class action settlement for similar problems.

Uber just deflects responsibility, makes no improvements and continues to violate.