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

441–450 of 502 posts

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

#441

Post by buran77 »

jedberg wrote: post #434
seoaeu wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can trust me on this one, as I've seen this process in the past in this kind of company and from the right vantage point: it stopped at "is it bringing us more revenue within the strategy we outlined for the next X years?".

Uber has all the resources needed to implement this, they don't need to outsource, they don't need to commission studies, they have all they need upfront because it's the same skills and resources that make them money now. If they saw an opportunity they wouldn't have left money on the table.

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

#442

Post by edgyquant »

wdn wrote: post #310
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?

This is not the only issue. It is an extension to a bigger issue, cancelling rides. There are many time I have Uber driver cancelling my ride from the airport because my destination is not the big metro center, rather, just outside of it. The driver was quick to accept the request, then called and then cancel the ride. Of course, the driver would said the customer "request the cancellation". This wasted so much of pe…

This wastes time and cost 5$. More than once a driver has not been able to find me at the airport (despite me giving directions as to where I am) and then cancelled the ride. This weekend I needed a ride after I missed a flight, the driver shows up and after 15 minutes of me walking around the garage looking for them the ride is cancelled and I get a 5$ charge. I’m sure you can dispute this, and they’ll likely side with you, but it’s 5$ and I’d bet they bet on most people thinking their time is worth more than 5.

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

#443

Post by arenaninja »

Bedon292 wrote: post #225
arenaninja wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was out for breakfast for the first time since the pandemic started this weekend (I'm fully vaccinated now) and in walks a guy with a dog sporting a "Service Animal" sash that in tiny letters said "emotional support". I was paralyzed - I was traumatized by my interactions with dogs when I was a kid; where's my say in having untrained animals in my vicinity? This kind of shit needs to be ended but there should be NO…

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…

> Legally an actual service animal must be trained

There's a distinction between trained service animals and emotional support animals. Both are support animals but the latter are largely untrained which is why airlines have moved to ban them. I have no issue whatsoever with trained service animals!

I think there's a conversation to be had about dogs as vicious in nature but I have been laughed out of the room when I mention this to an in-person audience. But many USPS/UPS/FedEx and now Amazon delivery people are aware of this: untrained dogs are a danger

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

#444

Post by R0b0t1 »

Miner49er wrote: post #344
R0b0t1 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am seriously doubting an allergic driver would be forced to take a passenger with a dog. Their immediate right to life trumps the ADA. There's more interesting arguments to be made, like you can't ask the driver to provide proof of their allergies, and so on.

Does there exist such a thing as a life threatening allergy to dogs? The rules are pretty clear that an allergy isn't a good enough reason to deny service, but it says that Uber should try and accommodate employees that don't want to be around dogs for whatever reason: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

I'm not sure it matters if the allergy is life threatening or not. Again, you can't question the validity or scope of someone's disability under the ADA.

You need to read the rules more carefully: they mean Uber, in as much as it is in control of the rideshare service, can't deny people on that basis. The individual drivers can and their employer must accommodate them under the ADA.

If the drivers aren't employees and are self employed then as they are a business of less than 15 employees they can refuse anyone they want for any reason.

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

#445

Post by caddemon »

cortesoft wrote: post #258
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #62

It was downvoted below, but reposting here because this is something that I think should be seen as it comes up often: >> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." > Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely…

> what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? Yeah, being traumatized doesn't let you break the law. Otherwise, people could say "I am traumatized by black people!" or "I am traumatized by gay people!"

I get enforcement is basically impossible on this/people throw around the word "traumatized" way too much - but I knew a girl who was attacked by a dog as a child and would have panic attacks if a large dog got anywhere near her. I'm not sure if you've ever seen a real panic attack but these are legitimate physical symptoms that can be very difficult to control, and would be extremely non-ideal to occur while driving.

If you want to argue that this condition should mean she can't be an Uber driver I can see your point, but the comparison to race or sexual orientation is pretty absurd. I'm not aware of anyone who has panic attacks when seeing a human of another race or orientation.

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

#446

Post by omgwtfbbq »

xmprt wrote: post #288
scsilver wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That at the end of the day, Uber sent a woman into terrible situation, creating a bunch of externalities that society has to bare. Society should have the right to identify those externalities and bring the companies attention to those externalities. If the company says "not my problem" the public should get to decide if they want to allow a company to blithely foist those externalities onto society. They have a lega…

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 tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable?

Yes, because they are employees of Uber and this is why they tried to argue that they were actually contractors to avoid liability.

>It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store.

A better analogy would be Cashiers repeatedly refusing to check out a blind women's groceries.

>Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'.

In the US at least all companies are beholden to the ADA and would certainly be liable to compliance. You seem to think that Uber drivers are not really employed by Uber which I don't think is a settled legal question but that argument was rejected in this case.

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

#447

Post by filoleg »

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…

This sounds nice in theory, and, sure, it will solve the situation with a driver having a dog allergy.

But what about a more common and realistic scenario, where the driver doesn't have the allergy, but the next Uber passenger does (the one who gets into the car after the passenger with a dog leaves)? Do you propose to perform full sterilization of the vehicle after every passenger with a dog (and I mean an actual full sterilization, not just wiping the seats clean)? Because otherwise, the dog dander particles will still be present in the vehicle in some capacity, thus causing an allergic reaction in the next passenger who has allergies.

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

#448

Post by caddemon »

teraflop wrote: post #109
shotta wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t someone with a severe allergy to dogs also be covered under ADA?

If a company has fewer than 15 employees, it's exempt from the ADA's requirements. If it has 15 employees or more, then the law assumes that it's reasonable for the company to provide service (e.g. by reassigning a non-allergic employee to work with a customer who has a service dog) except where it would demonstrably create an undue hardship.

If that's true then the narrative above about how "people with dog allergies shouldn't be allowed to drive for Uber" is crap. Service dogs are much rarer than Uber drivers without allergies. There's no reason Uber can't accommodate both customers with service animals and drivers with legitimate reasons to avoid certain service animals.

Some drivers may lie, but if you require even a simple doctor's note I think that would deter a lot of people from bothering, given the rarity of encountering a service dog request.

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

#449

Post by jedberg »

buran77 wrote: post #441
jedberg wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can trust me on this one, as I've seen this process in the past in this kind of company and from the right vantage point: it stopped at "is it bringing us more revenue within the strategy we outlined for the next X years?". Uber has all the resources needed to implement this, they don't need to outsource, they don't need to commission studies, they have all they need upfront because it's the same skills and resou…

Oh I'm sure it would cost them more money in the short term. It would probably improve customer satisfaction though. Or driver satisfaction. Both of which would have longer term effects on revenue. So it's a question of whether or not they optimize for those things.

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

#450

Post by rogerdickey »

yarcob wrote: post #271
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…

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…

There is no “should”. Service providers can do whatever they please. Look up Masterpiece Cake Shop.
Post reply on HN