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

391–400 of 502 posts

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

#391

Post by dragonwriter »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #83
dragonwriter wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Uber drivers are employees, it is probably legal (and possibly mandatory for the employer) to take the employee health impact into account when assigning employees. If Uber drivers are independent service providers to the passenger matched through a matchmaking service, and the law prohibits discrimination against people with service animals, they probably are not. Different jurisdictions (even within the US) may…

ADA is a federal law, so I don't think it would make any difference within the US in different jurisdictions.

> ADA is a federal law, so I don't think it would make any difference within the US in different jurisdictions.

ADA applies to employers for their employees disabilities, and providers of goods and services for their customers disabilities.

In a jurisdiction where Uber is a provider, the driver is an employee, and the passenger is an Uber customer it may well apply differently than in a jurisdiction where Uber is a third-party-matchmaker-service, the driver is a provider of service to the passenger, and the passenger is a customer of the driver that locates and pays the driver through Uber services.

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

#392

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#393

Post by core-questions »

John23832 wrote: post #349
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?

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.

What legal culpability do they have accepting payments for organizations that run websites that allow people to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to free speech?

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

#394

Post by core-questions »

m11a wrote: post #199
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?

A lot of platforms have arbitrary requirements of who they'll serve or won't serve. Even those with fixed rules can enforce against anyone, and then just ignore your support tickets when you try to appeal. I guess the difference in this case is targeting someone due to a disability/protected characteristic, compared to some other reason. One fair thing might be Uber subsidising rides of disabled people with guide dog…

> disability/protected characteristic

which is precisely why White people need the same legal protections every other group has under the Civil Rights Act.

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

#395

Post by darkerside »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #378
CydeWeys wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bodi…

> Yet is absolutely equivalent to a vomiting drunk in terms of cleanup expenses

I know which I'd rather clean up after

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

#396

Post by bsimpson »

elil17 wrote: post #229
EugeneOZ wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, after reading this I can't forget it. Not sure what kind of animal one needs to be to do this.

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.

Do you just come into threads about companies you don't like to score political points?

Being an abhorrent dick to someone has nothing to do with "food or shelter for themselves or their family." It's like you're piecing together your remarks from a woke phrasebook.

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

#397

Post by hluska »

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #281
pessimizer wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if there are no jobs in your area other than dog groomers and you desperately need a job, if you have PTSD from dogs, you can't be a dog groomer. If you create two classes of driver, one who has to follow the ADA and one who doesn't, you've just repealed the ADA.

No you haven't. ADA should be supporting people who have fears of animals as well, IMO. It's about supporting everyone, not just one class of disability. For that matter, a driver with a severe back problem shouldn't be forced to help a disabled customer with lifting their luggage into the trunk. A different driver should be found. ADA should support both individuals in being safe.

I feel like you misunderstand the ADA. The ADA does protect those people - they just need to ask for reasonable accommodations and be prepared to back up that request with documentation.

Please note that this suit is not about a person with PTSD being forced to drive a guide dog. It’s about a person who has a guide dog continuously being denied reasonable accommodations.

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

#398

Post by hluska »

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 is! If you have severe enough allergies to count as a disability, you should ask your employer for reasonable accommodations, be prepared to provide medical documentation if they’re not obvious and win your own suit like this if you don’t receive those accommodations.

The ADA is really quite amazing.

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

#399

Post by ALittleLight »

cactus2093 wrote: post #374
_wp3r wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I got off a bus once, at night, by mistake, in what seemed like a very bad part of town. I was waiting for the next bus to carry me away but became uncomfortable with my surroundings and so tried to get an Uber to come first. I had four or five cancel on me immediately after getting assigned and wound up having to wait for the bus anyway. I've never experienced that before or since with Uber.

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

#400

Post by floxy »

qaq wrote: post #299
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…

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

Everyone seems to be avoiding the real question. When is Boston Dynamics going to disrupt the guide dog industry?
Post reply on HN