7 ms·

Texas Woman with Cerebral Palsy: Uber Denied Her Service Over Two Dozen Times

89 points by uptown 9y ago

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
The headline should specify that Uber drivers denied service, not the company itself. The drivers violated Uber’s own policy regarding service animals.
- jachee 9y ago
  Was disciplinary action taken against those drivers? If they continued to be associated with Uber, without consequences, then Uber is complicit in their behavior. >Steele’s suit notes that Uber corporate were not especially helpful in resolving her ongoing denial-of-service issues. Seems like Uber is the ultimate root cause.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - lhorie 9y ago
    This[1] suggests that they do have specialized channels to report this exact type of problem, and that they do investigate and take action on reported cases. It says they also periodically send reminder emails about the legal requirements for drivers. I talked to a driver once that said that he got suspended when a rider had erroneously reported that he "looked high" (despite that being the only complaint that day despite him having had many passengers). He complained that Uber had not even bothered to hear his side of the story before suspending him and they should've told him to come to a driver center to get tested, instead of just taking someone's report at face value. He said he went to the hospital to get drug tested and had to submit the results to get reinstated. So at least from anecdata, it seems non-compliant drivers do get booted on a shoot-first-ask-later fashion. It sounds like the problem here is that some drivers still choose to break the law on the 1 out a 1000 chance they run into the service dog situation, even despite all the warnings telling them not to do it. [1](https://accessibility.uber.com/ https://accessibility.uber.com/)
- RangerScience 9y ago
  It always bothers me when people lay out the defense "but it was their choice". Sure. It was. It was a choice made within a context created by someone else; to deny the role Uber played in that choice is just as problematic as blaming Uber for the loss of taxi jobs.
- black_puppydog 9y ago
  This shifting of responsabilities (and, mostly, blame) is exactly what I've come to expect of Uber and it's kind. By "it's kind" I don't mean evil people but rather anything that might describe itself as "Uber for X". This is why I'm so happy about developments like in the UK [1], which forces Uber to assume responsibility in this kind of situation. Responsibility to the customer is something that should not be delegated IMHO. If you sell someone a TV set including installation and the person installing it fucks up, you deal with the company who sold it (and it's their reputation on the line) and if they want to, they then deal with their employee/contractor. Why should we settle for anything else with Uber? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-loses-appeal-employment-rights-workers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-lose...
- 27182818284 9y ago
  My immediate thought reading the headline was, "Drivers are or Uber the company is?" so there was some ambiguity for me. Especially since I just took a Lyft ride with the parent of someone with cerebral palsy (we talked about it during the ride)
purpleidea 9y ago
If a bus driver is allergic to a dog, then it's usually not an issue because the dog won't be very close to the driver, but in the case of an uber, it could be a real problem. I'm sympathetic to this person wanting to take an uber, but uber needs to be able to allow drivers to mark their cars as "dog friendly". That way she can get a ride, and allergic drivers won't suffer.
- RangerScience 9y ago
  This makes sense. If instead of a dog it's a wheelchair, it's undeniably "not your fault" if you car literally can't handle it. The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped; I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog.
  - jstarfish 9y ago
    Cleaning aside, I'm surprised that having unsecured bodies in a passenger vehicle is a requisite for being a service provider. Letting your dog loose in your own car is your own choice, but the trunk exists for unsecured cargo so in an accident, you don't have large objects flying around inside the cabin. The correct solution would be to identify the handicapped passenger with animal and dispatch an appropriate vehicle. Instead, Uber puts both driver and passenger in danger with this policy.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      People do not put their dogs in the trunk and they may or may not use carriers in vehicles with a back cargo hatch.
      - jstarfish 9y ago
        I'm aware people do not put dogs in the trunk, nor was I suggesting that-- hence dispatching an alternative vehicle to accommodate an animal. A van with a carrier, or an SUV with a partitioned front/rear would suffice. Instead of calling Uber X, you call Uber Furry or somesuch.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
With the rise of the gig economy, I suspect that the ADA will come under severe attack in the next few years. My guess is that most AirBnb apartments don't really have ADA compliant accomodations. For example, many second floor apartments only have stairs without elevators or wheelchair ramps. In addition, there have been some high profile cases such as Berkeley removing free, public lectures because of ADA violations https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-berkeley-delete-publicly-available-educational-content https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-... as well as the abuse by some of bringing companion animals onto airplanes. With independent contractors making a large part of the work force, accommodating is harder for individuals than for companies, and so political momentum may build up for repeal of the various laws.
- DanBC 9y ago
  I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK people with disabilities are tired of asking nicely and have moved onto using the courts to enforce the long-existing laws. With cars it's very clear: you can't refuse to take guide dogs.
- pjc50 9y ago
  That's a pretty bad outcome, since (if "gig economy" businesses drive out regular ones) it will have the effect of making it much harder for disabled and elderly people to travel or even leave the house.
  - bobthepanda 9y ago
    That's always been the concern of the gig economy. People too poor or with some other qualifier that prevents them from using gig services get stuck with a crappier and crappier public option as people with the means to do so flock to gig services and lose their appetite for funding public services they don't use.
  - bunderbunder 9y ago
    This is a big part of why I bristle when Uber fans claim that ride sharing makes public transit obsolete. Families, too. Taking kids on the bus or train is fine. If I were to try and use Uber, though, I'd need to also lug along 60lb worth of car seats. One car seat might be manageable, but even then I'd have to deal with the drivers giving me a hard time about installing it.
bsedfsf 9y ago
Try getting an uber with a child seat.
- xbeta 9y ago
  Don't Uber already provide that? I saw it in NYC (maybe they pick few cities now to test this out) https://help.uber.com/h/3abcbae1-132b-42a9-8277-0dab00fa3879 https://help.uber.com/h/3abcbae1-132b-42a9-8277-0dab00fa3879
  - csixty4 9y ago
    Only in NYC so far, last I checked. My wife knows a taxi service here in Boston that we use when we're travelling with the little guy. Last time we flew, we were picked up in a black car with tinted windows and leather seats. There was a stylish black carseat in the back for him ready to go. Sadly, he's still too young to feel like a rock star.
black_puppydog 9y ago
just to prevent more "but the driver has an allergy, too" comments: yes, some might. and we can have a debate about that. but most don't, and an allergy is explicitely not the reason all of the drivers in this case gave. so it doesn't apply here.
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  The difference is that at some point in your Uber "career" you will be expected to transport someone with a service animal and you can't legally refuse to transport them. The way the law is written you can't even ask to see proof it's a service animal, if someone tells you it's a service animal then it legally is a service animal to explicitly prevent this form of discrimination. If you can't perform all the legal requirements of a job then there's a case to be made that you probably shouldn't be doing that job.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    Taxi drivers can't do any of that either, so I don't see the problem.
  - black_puppydog 9y ago
    I agree with the last part at least. What I mean is "we can have a debate about whether the current legal requirements need exceptions for eg allergic drivers".
odammit 9y ago
When booking a ride, Uber needs three toggles: - Do you a service dog - Do you want AC - Do you want to talk to the driver Edit: I can’t format.
- commanderjroc 9y ago
  That could lead to discrimination if someone see's a person has a service dog. The whole point of the ADA is to not treat people with disabilities as if they are second class citizens.
  - odammit 9y ago
    Of course. But that driver could have a disability - their allergy if it’s severe. Maybe it shouldn’t be a toggle, maybe it’s a part of both the driver and users profile so a driver can’t descriminate and instead it’s more of a matching algorithm.
ThrustVectoring 9y ago
It's interesting that the lawsuit is against Uber, and not the "independent contractors" that fulfill the service on Uber's behalf. Likely because there's no money in suing drivers, while Uber itself has billions.
poster123 9y ago
If it takes more time to get a passenger with cerebral palsy in and out of the car, then a driver who picks one up is losing money compared to transporting a regular passenger. If the government wants encourage ride-sharing services, instead of punishing low-paid workers for doing what's in their interests, it should give drivers bonuses for transporting passengers who present difficulties. My wife is a doctor. She does not get an extra fee for treating non-English speaking patients, but she needs to pay a translator, and the appointments are longer. She is effectively punished for seeing patients who don't speak English. By the same logic as above, either the insurance company or the patient should pay an extra fee when a translator is required. Otherwise, doctors will be motivated to avoid working where lots of patients need translators.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  Perhaps we want to help people with greater needs, and not stick them with higher prices everywhere they go - in part because people with greater needs often have fewer resources. Every business must pull its weight in contributing to society and make some sacrifices; otherwise society, the economy, your community wouldn't function. Your wife, I, and everyone reading this benefit from the sacrifices others have made over centuries. We are specks of dust on the shoulders of giants, so personally I'm happy and proud to be able to give a little. > My wife is a doctor. She does not get an extra fee for treating non-English speaking patients Maybe she should get a smaller fee for treating easier patients, and not only those who are easier to communicate with but those with easier conditions to treat, those who are more agreeable, those who can comprehend medical issues more readily, those who are on time, those who can afford medications, devices, tests, treatments, etc. Every business has a variety of customers of differing levels of difficulty, and generally charges them all the same; it averages out. Go buy some clothes; if you take more of the salesperson's time, they don't charge you more.
SamReidHughes 9y ago
Uber is apparently the best way for this woman with cerebral palsy to get around, given how much she uses it. Even with some drivers deciding that they don't want to take her.
member221 9y ago
I was not really having a problem breathing at first. My throat was burning; I thought I had strep throat. I had pain in my neck, and there was swelling around my collar bone. The first doctor I went to said he did not know why there was swelling. He gave me antibiotics and told me that if the swelling was not better to come back in two weeks. I went back in two weeks and he said he did not know what was wrong. Since I do not have insurance, I went to a hospital emergency room, and they said I have COPD, I lost touch with reality. January 2018 I started on the COPD natural herbal formula we ordered from GREEN HOUSE HERBAL CLINIC, We spoke to few people who used the treatment here in the United States and they all gave a positive response, my symptoms totally declined over a 7 weeks use of the Green House COPD disease natural herbal formula. I am now almost 70 and doing very well, the disease is totally reversed! (Visit their website www . Greenhouseherbalclinic . com) I am thankful to nature, herbs are truly gift from God. i breath much better and feel comfortable doing so, I will keep sharing more awareness!!!

89 points by uptown 9y ago

The headline should specify that Uber drivers denied service, not the company itself. The drivers violated Uber’s own policy regarding service animals.

jachee 9y ago
Was disciplinary action taken against those drivers? If they continued to be associated with Uber, without consequences, then Uber is complicit in their behavior. >Steele’s suit notes that Uber corporate were not especially helpful in resolving her ongoing denial-of-service issues. Seems like Uber is the ultimate root cause.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- lhorie 9y ago
  This[1] suggests that they do have specialized channels to report this exact type of problem, and that they do investigate and take action on reported cases. It says they also periodically send reminder emails about the legal requirements for drivers. I talked to a driver once that said that he got suspended when a rider had erroneously reported that he "looked high" (despite that being the only complaint that day despite him having had many passengers). He complained that Uber had not even bothered to hear his side of the story before suspending him and they should've told him to come to a driver center to get tested, instead of just taking someone's report at face value. He said he went to the hospital to get drug tested and had to submit the results to get reinstated. So at least from anecdata, it seems non-compliant drivers do get booted on a shoot-first-ask-later fashion. It sounds like the problem here is that some drivers still choose to break the law on the 1 out a 1000 chance they run into the service dog situation, even despite all the warnings telling them not to do it. [1](https://accessibility.uber.com/ https://accessibility.uber.com/)
RangerScience 9y ago
It always bothers me when people lay out the defense "but it was their choice". Sure. It was. It was a choice made within a context created by someone else; to deny the role Uber played in that choice is just as problematic as blaming Uber for the loss of taxi jobs.
black_puppydog 9y ago
This shifting of responsabilities (and, mostly, blame) is exactly what I've come to expect of Uber and it's kind. By "it's kind" I don't mean evil people but rather anything that might describe itself as "Uber for X". This is why I'm so happy about developments like in the UK [1], which forces Uber to assume responsibility in this kind of situation. Responsibility to the customer is something that should not be delegated IMHO. If you sell someone a TV set including installation and the person installing it fucks up, you deal with the company who sold it (and it's their reputation on the line) and if they want to, they then deal with their employee/contractor. Why should we settle for anything else with Uber? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-loses-appeal-employment-rights-workers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-lose...
27182818284 9y ago
My immediate thought reading the headline was, "Drivers are or Uber the company is?" so there was some ambiguity for me. Especially since I just took a Lyft ride with the parent of someone with cerebral palsy (we talked about it during the ride)

purpleidea 9y ago

If a bus driver is allergic to a dog, then it's usually not an issue because the dog won't be very close to the driver, but in the case of an uber, it could be a real problem. I'm sympathetic to this person wanting to take an uber, but uber needs to be able to allow drivers to mark their cars as "dog friendly". That way she can get a ride, and allergic drivers won't suffer.

RangerScience 9y ago
This makes sense. If instead of a dog it's a wheelchair, it's undeniably "not your fault" if you car literally can't handle it. The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped; I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  Cleaning aside, I'm surprised that having unsecured bodies in a passenger vehicle is a requisite for being a service provider. Letting your dog loose in your own car is your own choice, but the trunk exists for unsecured cargo so in an accident, you don't have large objects flying around inside the cabin. The correct solution would be to identify the handicapped passenger with animal and dispatch an appropriate vehicle. Instead, Uber puts both driver and passenger in danger with this policy.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    People do not put their dogs in the trunk and they may or may not use carriers in vehicles with a back cargo hatch.
    - jstarfish 9y ago
      I'm aware people do not put dogs in the trunk, nor was I suggesting that-- hence dispatching an alternative vehicle to accommodate an animal. A van with a carrier, or an SUV with a partitioned front/rear would suffice. Instead of calling Uber X, you call Uber Furry or somesuch.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

With the rise of the gig economy, I suspect that the ADA will come under severe attack in the next few years. My guess is that most AirBnb apartments don't really have ADA compliant accomodations. For example, many second floor apartments only have stairs without elevators or wheelchair ramps. In addition, there have been some high profile cases such as Berkeley removing free, public lectures because of ADA violations https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-berkeley-delete-publicly-available-educational-content https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-... as well as the abuse by some of bringing companion animals onto airplanes. With independent contractors making a large part of the work force, accommodating is harder for individuals than for companies, and so political momentum may build up for repeal of the various laws.

DanBC 9y ago
I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK people with disabilities are tired of asking nicely and have moved onto using the courts to enforce the long-existing laws. With cars it's very clear: you can't refuse to take guide dogs.
pjc50 9y ago
That's a pretty bad outcome, since (if "gig economy" businesses drive out regular ones) it will have the effect of making it much harder for disabled and elderly people to travel or even leave the house.
- bobthepanda 9y ago
  That's always been the concern of the gig economy. People too poor or with some other qualifier that prevents them from using gig services get stuck with a crappier and crappier public option as people with the means to do so flock to gig services and lose their appetite for funding public services they don't use.
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  This is a big part of why I bristle when Uber fans claim that ride sharing makes public transit obsolete. Families, too. Taking kids on the bus or train is fine. If I were to try and use Uber, though, I'd need to also lug along 60lb worth of car seats. One car seat might be manageable, but even then I'd have to deal with the drivers giving me a hard time about installing it.

bsedfsf 9y ago

Try getting an uber with a child seat.

xbeta 9y ago
Don't Uber already provide that? I saw it in NYC (maybe they pick few cities now to test this out) https://help.uber.com/h/3abcbae1-132b-42a9-8277-0dab00fa3879 https://help.uber.com/h/3abcbae1-132b-42a9-8277-0dab00fa3879
- csixty4 9y ago
  Only in NYC so far, last I checked. My wife knows a taxi service here in Boston that we use when we're travelling with the little guy. Last time we flew, we were picked up in a black car with tinted windows and leather seats. There was a stylish black carseat in the back for him ready to go. Sadly, he's still too young to feel like a rock star.

black_puppydog 9y ago

just to prevent more "but the driver has an allergy, too" comments: yes, some might. and we can have a debate about that. but most don't, and an allergy is explicitely not the reason all of the drivers in this case gave. so it doesn't apply here.

UncleEntity 9y ago
The difference is that at some point in your Uber "career" you will be expected to transport someone with a service animal and you can't legally refuse to transport them. The way the law is written you can't even ask to see proof it's a service animal, if someone tells you it's a service animal then it legally is a service animal to explicitly prevent this form of discrimination. If you can't perform all the legal requirements of a job then there's a case to be made that you probably shouldn't be doing that job.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Taxi drivers can't do any of that either, so I don't see the problem.
- black_puppydog 9y ago
  I agree with the last part at least. What I mean is "we can have a debate about whether the current legal requirements need exceptions for eg allergic drivers".

odammit 9y ago

When booking a ride, Uber needs three toggles: - Do you a service dog - Do you want AC - Do you want to talk to the driver Edit: I can’t format.

commanderjroc 9y ago
That could lead to discrimination if someone see's a person has a service dog. The whole point of the ADA is to not treat people with disabilities as if they are second class citizens.
- odammit 9y ago
  Of course. But that driver could have a disability - their allergy if it’s severe. Maybe it shouldn’t be a toggle, maybe it’s a part of both the driver and users profile so a driver can’t descriminate and instead it’s more of a matching algorithm.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago

It's interesting that the lawsuit is against Uber, and not the "independent contractors" that fulfill the service on Uber's behalf. Likely because there's no money in suing drivers, while Uber itself has billions.

poster123 9y ago

If it takes more time to get a passenger with cerebral palsy in and out of the car, then a driver who picks one up is losing money compared to transporting a regular passenger. If the government wants encourage ride-sharing services, instead of punishing low-paid workers for doing what's in their interests, it should give drivers bonuses for transporting passengers who present difficulties. My wife is a doctor. She does not get an extra fee for treating non-English speaking patients, but she needs to pay a translator, and the appointments are longer. She is effectively punished for seeing patients who don't speak English. By the same logic as above, either the insurance company or the patient should pay an extra fee when a translator is required. Otherwise, doctors will be motivated to avoid working where lots of patients need translators.

forapurpose 9y ago
Perhaps we want to help people with greater needs, and not stick them with higher prices everywhere they go - in part because people with greater needs often have fewer resources. Every business must pull its weight in contributing to society and make some sacrifices; otherwise society, the economy, your community wouldn't function. Your wife, I, and everyone reading this benefit from the sacrifices others have made over centuries. We are specks of dust on the shoulders of giants, so personally I'm happy and proud to be able to give a little. > My wife is a doctor. She does not get an extra fee for treating non-English speaking patients Maybe she should get a smaller fee for treating easier patients, and not only those who are easier to communicate with but those with easier conditions to treat, those who are more agreeable, those who can comprehend medical issues more readily, those who are on time, those who can afford medications, devices, tests, treatments, etc. Every business has a variety of customers of differing levels of difficulty, and generally charges them all the same; it averages out. Go buy some clothes; if you take more of the salesperson's time, they don't charge you more.

SamReidHughes 9y ago

Uber is apparently the best way for this woman with cerebral palsy to get around, given how much she uses it. Even with some drivers deciding that they don't want to take her.

member221 9y ago

I was not really having a problem breathing at first. My throat was burning; I thought I had strep throat. I had pain in my neck, and there was swelling around my collar bone. The first doctor I went to said he did not know why there was swelling. He gave me antibiotics and told me that if the swelling was not better to come back in two weeks. I went back in two weeks and he said he did not know what was wrong. Since I do not have insurance, I went to a hospital emergency room, and they said I have COPD, I lost touch with reality. January 2018 I started on the COPD natural herbal formula we ordered from GREEN HOUSE HERBAL CLINIC, We spoke to few people who used the treatment here in the United States and they all gave a positive response, my symptoms totally declined over a 7 weeks use of the Green House COPD disease natural herbal formula. I am now almost 70 and doing very well, the disease is totally reversed! (Visit their website www . Greenhouseherbalclinic . com) I am thankful to nature, herbs are truly gift from God. i breath much better and feel comfortable doing so, I will keep sharing more awareness!!!