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

#351

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

usbline wrote: post #289

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…

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?

> Should they forced to shuttle around drunken and incontinent people too?

Holy red herring, Batman. Are you serious equating drunk people with disabled people who need physical accommodations? The ADA does not have anything to say about mandating accommodations for drunk people.

Separately, people who are incontinent actually, you know, do things to manage their condition (like wear adult diapers as necessary). They aren't just randomly shitting everywhere. Your contrived examples are just downright offensive.

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

#352

Post by delfinom » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:28 PM UTC

cwhiz wrote: post #287

elil17 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The full time employees at Uber really.

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

#353

Post by CydeWeys » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #326

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?

In this case, I think people need to realize what they are signing up for. If you deliver pizza it's a given you will start reeking of pizza. Uber is notoriously used for designated driving, and anyone surely knows by adult hood that having diarrhea isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when, and basic probability would tell you eventually will get a customer with diarrhea or someone who is about to throw up their t…

Uber and taxi drivers are allowed to refuse drunk passengers, but they are not allowed to refuse passengers with disabilities (thanks to the ADA). It's a completely different situation.

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

#354

Post by Ekaros » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #331

unionpivo wrote: post #282

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. 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.

Uber is company with over 15 employees. As such it must follow the law. So in the end it has to find some driver who is willing to transport customer. But on other hand all drivers as independent contractors can refuse. It's catch-22. But court can reasonably expect Uber being able to pay enough for someone to take the job...

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

#355

Post by m-ee » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

kart23 wrote: post #248

>The ADA makes it unlawful to require proof of a disability or identification for a service dog. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there are no requirements for licensing, certification or identification of service dogs. Also, service animals are not required to wear special collars, vests or harnesses. I never really knew about this. Technically you could just bring your dog into any business and claim it…

They are allowed to ask if the dog is trained to perform a specific task which would differentiate a guide dog or medical alert dog that can’t be refused entry from an emotional support animal that can.

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

#356

Post by spunker540 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:33 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…

I’ve had way more yellowcabs in nyc refuse to take me to the airport than ubers/lyfts.

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

#357

Post by kube-system » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:33 PM UTC

julienb_sea wrote: post #276

kube-system wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Employee classification is dependent on the amount of control that a company has over the worker. Uber has consistently argued that they have minimal influence over driver behavior, in attempts to keep their status quo on their workers' current classification, and avoid the costs associated with having employees.

In this case, they again made these claims.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/file/805/6/8056-Award%20in%20Irv...

The more 'hands-off' that Uber can assert that they are with their drivers, the better for their argument. They want to be 100% a middleman and 0% anything else. Ultimately, I think they'll fail, but for now, that's their strategy.

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

#358

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #346

lotsofpulp wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Many hotels and motels are small businesses (usually franchisees) that are low margin, low volume, they can't just eat the costs, which are also not equal the price of the room rate.

A disruptive pet can cause you to have to refund multiple other rooms, and potential loss of future business too. A disruptive pet can cause physical damage to the room far in excess of the room rate. We once had a pet ruin the carpet so bad the room was not able to be sold for weeks, even after multiple carpet shampoos.

And you also can't go after the hotel guests to recoup costs because the legal fees are hefty and the probability of winning the case, the defendants having money, and actually paying the money are all very low.

Obviously all of this is true for disruptive people too, it's just that pets add another risk. Personally, after what I've seen, I would pay extra to be able to stay at a hotel that could guarantee it never had any pets stay.

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

#359

Post by Ekaros » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #339

Ekaros wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Uber has more than 15 employees. As such they need to be compliant, their contractors do not... It's weird situation, but applies to any areas where we are dealing with small subcontractors.

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

#360

Post by ProfessorLayton » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:37 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?

The anti-discrimination logic applies very specifically to protected classes, and only protected classes. So yes indeed bake that cake.