361–370 of 502 posts
I'm surprised that the law requires you to allow dogs in your car. It's one thing for a public space, but for a private service it seems like it should be okay to have a no-dogs-allowed rule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The drivers represent the company and all interactions with the driver are setup through the company. So, yes. ie: If a driver snatches my backpack and drives away, I expect Uber to replace/return what was stolen from me by their contractor. Not for them to just tell me to take a hike and deal with it myself.
So there is absolutely nothing a company can do to absolve themselves of the poor behavior of employees? By that system, Uber would still be at fault if they explicitly told all drivers "you are not allowed to deny service to someone with a service dog under any circumstances", and a driver did anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs. Following the above, wouldn't this be any job that requires interacting with other people? So basically any job?
I can't speak for all jobs, but working as a software developer I have never been forced to interact with a dog
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Put up a divider. Or update the app's UX: "[ ] I'm blind and have a service dog."
Considering how little Uber drivers makes per drive (and they are independent contractors and not workers in most places) a simple divider would probably come close to the "unreasonable cost" in the ADA. It is not that I don't empathize with disabled people but ADA as it seems to be written and all the "support animals" these days would probably drive many small business to bankrupcy. In Sweden "our ADA" only applies…
Those are not covered by the ADA: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
>Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA?
> A. No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. However, some State or local governments have laws that allow people to take emotional support animals into public places. You may check with your State and local government agencies to find out about these laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably not. Even if they did, what should they do with that information? Service dogs have special status.
While under the law a transportation company must accommodate people with disabilities, I don't believe that they are required to have accommodation for every disability available on every vehicle. They can have a fleet of vehicles with a mix of accommodations ranging from none to fully equipped for everything, as long as when a disabled person calls for a ride the company can send a vehicle, about as promptly as the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has been ruled that fear of dogs or allergies to dogs is not sufficient reason to deny service to someone with a service dog. https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
I think a deathly allergy would qualify as a 'legitimate safety requirement'. There are also situations in which the ADA considers an allergy itself to be a disability, though the given examples are usually around food allergies.
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…
The problem is that Uber is getting work from the driver in order to meet Uber's obligations but without compensating the driver. The extra work required to e.g. clean the interior of the car after a service dog has been transported should be paid by Uber to the driver.
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 don't think any large tech company is capable of shipping a feature that quickly. Even for a feature as narrowly scoped as this, going from ideation to deployment in a few weeks seems completely unrealistic. There's just way too much involved aside from raw lines of code.
Can't really do that if they simply won't / argue they don't have to serve some members of the public ...
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…