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

#431

Post by duxup » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #413

duxup wrote: post #369

I recall a couple cities where folks proposed Uber / Lyft as a sort of public transit option or just filling the gap of public transit and etc. Can't really do that if they simply won't / argue they don't have to serve some members of the public ...

That a bit different a situation. The municipality would have a contract with a private company to provide public transportation services. Like with any such contracts, the recipient would have to abide by all specified regulations and also would have to hit performance milestones in order to get paid and/or renewed.

That doesn't jive with Ubers legal argument.

>it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees

That's not likely to change contract or not...

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

#432

Post by seoaeu » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

shagie wrote: post #340

vkou wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Uber simply needs to accommodate a passenger with a service dog, by assigning the closest non-allergic driver to them, and the driver not refusing service.

I would suggest that if the allergies are sufficient enough to reach disability, that instead of "Uber needs to assign the closest non-allergic driver" (because the ADA doesn't require that a passenger state that they have a service animal) ... Rather, Uber needs to offer accommodations to drivers. Modification of the vehicle so that the driver and passenger areas are separate and the there is sufficient air filtrati…

I think the challenge for Uber is that (despite being illegal) it still makes way more sense for a driver to pass up a $10 fare than spend 15 minutes in close proximity to an animal they're allergic to followed by however long it would take to sanitize your car afterwards. If drivers were employees, then Uber could just say "do it or you're fired" but as independent contractors the situation is much harder.

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

#433

Post by kevinmgranger » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

jonfw wrote: post #221

Bedon292 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems rather simple: Let drivers with allergies put that in their profile. Let riders put that they have a service animal in. And the system just doesn't pair them together. And now that the system knows someone has a service animal you can automatically review any cancelations by the driver and look for problems. I am actually kind of surprised that there isn't some review system already in place when a driver ends…

What's the incentive for a driver not to mark that they have allergies? You're essentially just giving them a checkbox "I don't want to deal with people who have service animals"

Uber could/should pay drivers who pick up service animals more to counterbalance.

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

#434

Post by jedberg » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

seoaeu wrote: post #426

jedberg wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a company of Uber's scale such an effort barely registers. You have that backwards. For a company of Uber's scale, this is a major initiative. For a small company they can just code it up and put it in the app.

By your definition, large companies are undergoing major initiatives constantly.

It depends how they company is set up, but what I propose would require buy in from the finance group since it would change the revenue model, the UX group, the localization group, and probably legal for regulatory compliance.

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

#435

Post by rchowe » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

pasttense01 wrote: post #402

goatinaboat wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are giving service providers way too much leeway. 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.

It's always the case that some trips are more profitable than others: for example there is another passenger to pick up immediately at the same place you dropped the last passenger off at. So while it matters that in total Uber driving is profitable for the driver it is not necessary that the 2% or so of the trips with blind passengers are.

Correct. If the drivers are treated as independent contractors and account for vehicle costs and paying themselves at least minimum wage for all working time, the profit margin on rides is quite slim, potentially to the point where the additional time to clean the car means a driver makes less than minimum wage. Were it an actual company, that would be illegal. Under Uber's model, it's "they are an independent contractor, we just match them with rides and handle billing."

Uber does provide training that says drivers must accept service dogs. However, if there are issues, they are uncommon enough and the likelihood of a driver getting sued is low enough that a driver may just drive away.

My gut tells me that drivers should be employees, or limits should be placed on using single-person independent contractors to provide a service like this. It's not going to solve every problem and the traditional "taxi" mentality is going to remain, but I remember the early days of Uber when drivers could not reject too many rides and stay on the platform, and it did seem to solve some of the management problems with drivers. Heck, maybe the answer is to contract the work out to car management companies with real HR departments like the airlines do with regional jet flying, so that Uber can insist on their high quality product and performance metrics and drivers can be employees.

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

#436

Post by OJFord » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

Rule35 wrote: post #401

OJFord wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The apps need a way for me to say "I have a carseat" or "I have a service animal" In the UK (and EU?) those are 'protected characteristics' that it'd be illegal to discriminate against. I suppose you could ask 'for information purposes', but you'd have to be prepared to defend yourself, proving that it didn't affect the service received. > and then give a bonus to the driver for picking me up. Like that. Of course…

This attitude that everything is the service providers problem is why service for the disabled is shitty. It does take longer to get into a car, etc, and that does cost a hungry driver more money. The extra cost should be born by society, which is where the requirement comes from. If we think the disabled should ride for the same price we should make that part of medical coverage and pay the driver for the extra time…

> This attitude [...] is why service for the disabled is shitty.

Is 'this attitude' mine (GP's)? As far as I'm aware I simply described the legal reality.

The point is that the driver may not 'ditch these fares', and that Uber (et al.) simply bares any difference as the cost of doing business.

They are not allowed, by law, to discriminate between a disabled passenger who 'takes too long', an able-bodied speedy passenger, and an able-bodied passenger who 'takes too long' for unforeseeable reasons, so it is just what it is (the 'forseeable' as the 'unforseeable').

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

#437

Post by nitrogen » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:08 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #263

nitrogen wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This type of compelled behavior seems like an oversized club to wield for the problem at hand. No individual should be forced to do something that will be harmful to them just because another individual belongs to a particular group.

No individual is being forced. Uber is being forced. Uber's the one that's gonna have to pay another $1 million in damages or whatever if they don't.

Fair enough. A lot of comments are talking about forcing drivers, even with allergies or phobias, to take any fare requested by a disabled person. It's definitely up to Uber to figure out how to comply and how to incentivize. Forced labor of individuals definitely isn't the way to do it, and is antithetical to modern principles of government.

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

#438

Post by lolinder » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:12 PM UTC

shagie wrote: post #87

lupire wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ADA applies to workers too. A dog allergy is a disability.

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possibl…

This. It would be absurdly easy for Uber to allow riders to specify "I have a service animal" and drivers to specify "I have a dog allergy" (probably with a requirement to provide a doctor's note to avoid abuse). You simply don't pair those riders with those drivers.

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

#439

Post by tinalumfoil » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:12 PM UTC

amyjess wrote: post #324

xmprt wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how this could be fixed though. Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store. Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabiliti…

Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers and terminating them for noncompliance. Perhaps they can even require drivers to sign contracts making them pay five-figure fines in addition to termination in the case they're found to have engaged in discrimination. They could make drivers keep dashcams, with microphones, in their cars and stream them to Uber HQ where a random sample of rides will be analyzed…

> Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers and terminating them for noncompliance

I know some do it for fun but most people don't become Uber drivers because they're swimming in cash. Your solution to helping the blind is to give 5-figure liability to low income drivers, and put them on a tight leash as you secretly try to trip them up.

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

#440

Post by m-ee » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:13 PM UTC

kart23 wrote: post #376

m-ee wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.ad…

Sure people could always lie. In practice I’ve seen people say it’s an emotional support animal or produce their doctors note for it, which somewhat ironically confirms it’s not actually a service dog.