4 ms·
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 exp
by 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 agoThe 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 agoTaxi drivers can't do any of that either, so I don't see the problem.
- black_puppydog 9y agoI 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".