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

#371

Post by selimthegrim » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

shuntress wrote: post #144

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're building a new building you should be required to have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't really a thing, so it's okay to require them. If you have an old building it's on the government to provide the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain buildings to stan…

I don't think there was anyone signed up as a driver with Uber before the ADA existed but for the sake of argument, we can assume those people exist. Yes, I agree that they should receive government-funded training that teaches them to tolerate a service dog in their car. Every who signs up to be an Uber driver after the signing of the ADA must be capable of transporting service dogs.

Ah, a Stephen Breyer counterfactual.

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

#372

Post by duxup » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

lebuffon wrote: post #347

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...

I would argue that a combo of the ADA and the nature of providing transit services would ... pretty much mean that working in transit is a choice that has a high likelihood of interacting with dogs... and that's on that person for making that choice.

And most religions while they have restrictions about X, Y, Z are also generally forgiving of happenstance, accidental religious rules violations, and just the necessities of living with others people.

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

#373

Post by Ekaros » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #368

fractionalhare wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is Uber a tech company?

Uber itself might be, the business it is in certainly isn't... Which is kinda dichotomy with many modern tech companies. The platform might be such, but in the end the product they are selling very much isn't.

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

#374

Post by cactus2093 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:53 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…

Just curious, have you ever actually taken many cabs in cities? Or Ubers?

I see this complaint all the time and I truly can't wrap my mind around it based on my own experience. The difference between yellow cabs and Ubers is night and day. I've had countless cabs drive away and refuse to pick me up because they didn't like where I was going, and that's never once happened with Uber (I'm sure it happens some behind the scenes but once I get matched with a driver it's very reliable).

There's even an entire industry in NYC of "gypsy cabs" in some of the outer boroughs, because the limited number of medallioned yellow cabs never go out there since it's not profitable enough.

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

#375

Post by mcguire » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:53 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.

If they are physically unable to work in the "rideshare business", however....

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

#376

Post by kart23 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

m-ee wrote: post #355

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.

They're not allowed to ask you/the dog to demonstrate though. Someone could just say yes or make something up. It's lying, but the business can't really do anything about it.

> Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

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

#377

Post by hluska » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:54 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?

I’m wondering if you’re trying to make a different point than the one I seem to think you made. To me, it sounds like you’re comparing people who choose to become intoxicated with differently abled people. If I choose to get so drunk that I’m vomiting, kick my dumb ass out of your vehicle. But if I’m sight impaired and have a guide dog?? If you kick me out of the vehicle, you’re not only an asshole but you’re an asshole who deserves to lose everything you worked for!

I must have read your comment wrong. Sorry if I misrepresented you, but I can’t figure out where I’ve gone wrong.

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

#378

Post by NikolaNovak » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #351

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?

> 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…

I didn't read it as fully a red herring.

1. It was in response to the poster that put forward a proposition that any and all passengers must at all times be taken; let's not take the response fully out of context just to attack it with outrage.

Similarly, I charitably assumed by "drunk & incontinent" they mean, literally and as written, "those who are irresponsibly drunk to the point of losing control over their bodily functions"; not those who may have a permanent and manageable/managed medical issue.

2. In practical terms, if I may be blunt and practical for a second, a e.g. service animal shepherd: a) Legally and morally SHOULD be allowed b) ...Yet is absolutely equivalent to a vomiting drunk in terms of cleanup expenses (and in some ways worse - follow-up passengers may have severe allergy issues, or even the driver themselves!)

There's no easy "win" here. We have to acknowledge the necessity of regulating/providing for all; but also the non-zero impact on the actual real live person driving the car. They are human too!

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

#379

Post by spazrunaway » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #360

core-questions wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What a mistake this all was.

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

#380

Post by mcguire » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

LocalH wrote: post #236

Bedon292 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally an actual service animal must be trained. Emotional support, for a variety of reasons including things like PTSD and anxiety attacks, is a completely valid use of service animals. How do you know they were not trained? If they were misbehaving, that's reason for them to be rejected, training or not. If not, legally allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to peop…

>If not, legally allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. This should change. Especially on the allergy front. Forcing someone to suffer an allergic reaction because a customer has a service dog is immoral.

Refusing to serve someone because they are blind is also immoral.

I'll let you decide who has the better case.