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

#471

Post by NoPicklez » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 2:19 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #307

qaq wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 agree with people with service dogs should be picked up and blind people.

But my thoughts drifted to what if a driver without allergies picked up a passenger with a service dog, that driver would then presumably need to spend time vacuuming the car such that another passenger with allergies isn't also impacted?

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

#472

Post by vkou » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 2:50 AM UTC

Rule35 wrote: post #403

vkou wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ADA does not give compliance exemptions to contractors employed by a company. Uber doesn't want their drivers classified as employees because it would cost them a lot of money in benefits and possibly back-pay.

And the drivers don't want to be employees or they'd be stuck driving for one company with a set shift. We need to fix contracting which means fixing access to affordable (ie, the same actual cost the company would pay) medical. The problem for Uber drivers is that the money they make can't pay for coverage because companies get highly discounted rates.

> And the drivers don't want to be employees or they'd be stuck driving for one company with a set shift.

Some drivers may want this. Others might not. I have a hard time believing any generalization about such a large group of people.

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

#473

Post by vkou » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 2:53 AM UTC

NoPicklez wrote: post #471

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 agree with people with service dogs should be picked up and blind people. But my thoughts drifted to what if a driver without allergies picked up a passenger with a service dog, that driver would then presumably need to spend time vacuuming the car such that another passenger with allergies isn't also impacted?

That could be a reasonable accommodation. Another reasonable accommodation would be to send another car.

Imagine if the Uber driver himself had a dog, and showed up to pick an allergic passenger up. What would the reasonable accommodation be in that case? Depending on how severe an allergy is, no amount of vacuuming is going to make a ride in such a car pleasant for the passenger.

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

#474

Post by shagie » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 3:08 AM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #461

sbierwagen wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What stops every driver from checking the "I'm allergic to dogs" box?

A premium that is paid by the passenger with a dog. Ideally that premium should mostly go to the driver, minus the regular Uber cut.

That is specifically and explicitly prohibited by the ADA. The service may not charge more for an individual with a service animal than an individual without.

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

#475

Post by shagie » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 3:11 AM UTC

syshum wrote: post #456

lm28469 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many Uber drivers barely make minimum wage. Because they're legally allowed to be underpaid contractors. The law should be changed to fix the root cause, not to change this side effect. Uber drivers aren't barely making min wage because they have no incentives to pick up disabled people ...

By "fix the root cause" you mean shut down uber right? because if all the "solutions" I have seen just in this thread were required (everything from Uber outfitting every car with Hypoallergenic compartments, to paying drivers extra for different types of customers (with out charging extra to the customer ofcourse) ) then the cost of the ride would be so prohibitively expensive that no one would use the service Peopl…

However, that is how regular taxi services work... and they're profitable. They don't ignore the ADA. They allow service animals. They help with wheelchairs and storing them appropriately - even if that requires more time for the driver. That extra cost of service is spread out across all customers and its a non-issue.

Uber's business model of trying to disrupt the taxi service by ignoring regulations is at issue here. With the ADA, they've encountered an issue that the court is not letting them ignore.

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

#476

Post by lolinder » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 3:48 AM UTC

shagie wrote: post #464

lolinder wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ADA doesn't require passengers to state that they have a service animal. Additionally, having that would likely open up Uber to additional liability for discrimination cases of people turning down rides (or marking that they have a dog allergy when they don't) and causing the rate or availability to be different for someone who has a situation that is covered by the ADA.

The availability difference is a concern. I wasn't picturing the drivers being made aware of the service animal ahead of time, which would eliminate discrimination concerns, assuming you could actually enforce that you have to have a real allergy.

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

#477

Post by URSpider94 » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 4:22 AM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #442

wdn wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I dispute this every time it happens, because it counts against your rider score and can stop you from getting rides in the future, or doom you to being matched with low-ranked drivers.

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

#478

Post by URSpider94 » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 4:26 AM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #332

wdn wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 should be easily solved if the system were working correctly. That is independent contractors were able to make bid on ride request. Undesirable destination? Customer just has to offer price someone is willing to offer a service at. At some price point someone is willing to do the job.

The whole point of granting taxi medallions in the first place was to provide a semi-monopoly on the service, in return for requiring taxi drivers to act like a public utility. There’s a societal benefit to being able to get a ride from wherever, to wherever for a pre-determined fare, without having to worry that your destination is a “bad neighborhood” or your skin is the wrong color or your guide dog might not be allowed.

We should not let ride sharing services just gut this aspect of hired car service.

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

#479

Post by URSpider94 » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 4:33 AM UTC

dillondoyle wrote: post #467

URSpider94 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guide dogs aren't pets. They are medical equipment.

it definitely looks like it's for pets here is what I see: https://imgur.com/a/apOq0TA the guide dogs should be allowed, at least that's what the article is about basically

If Uber Pet costs any more than just Uber, then it’s not ok for guide dog owners. You can’t charge a surcharge for transporting a service animal.

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

#480

Post by CryptoPunk » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 4:34 AM UTC

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…

>>Because if you allow that, everyone will try to undercut the competitors prices to get the "good" customers, and nobody will bother to offer services to the not so profitable customers.

They're not a charity. If you want to help the less fortunate, then donate directly to them.

Or if you believe that helping the less fortunate should be something people should be required to do, under pain of imprisonment, then advocate taxing people, and using that revenue to directly subsidize the less fortunate.

There's no reason the mandatory charity should fall entirely on service providers. It's not even an efficient way to help the less fortunate. If they received cash subsidies instead, then service providers would crop up that specialize in servicing people who have their disability, and would provide a far higher quality of service per dollar spent.