7 ms·

Uber ordered to pay $1.1m to blind woman refused rides

46 points by jeffwass 6y ago

jeffwass 6y ago
“One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination.” Terrible
goodells 6y ago
The issue specifically with the service animal is tough. I think people who benefit from legitimate service animals are seriously harmed by the people who claim their pet is a service animal so they can bring it with them. Anyone can buy a “service animal” vest on Amazon. And under the ADA, it’s basically illegal to even ask if it’s a legitimate service animal - you can ask “which tasks is it trained to perform?” The drivers are in a tough spot given that they’ve probably had poorly trained pets in their cars that were passed off as service animals.
- Spivak 6y ago
  The flip side of this is that modern life is really really unfriendly to people with pets. I don’t have a pet, don’t want one either so I have no horse in this race. Basically everywhere where you aren’t required by law to allow animals refuses them because making even the smallest voluntary accommodations for people is just something that doesn’t happen. The service animal thing is just a loophole to allow people to bring their pets on available-to-the-public transport the way car owners can. Because if you aren’t in walking distance to a dog park and don’t own a car sucks for you I guess. I don’t think anyone is arguing that untrained animals should just be let to run wild at malls but the blanket refusals that happen don’t even allow for the possibility of well-behaved animals. Like it would be an absolutely crazy world if every single business and all transportation refused to allow children unless it was deemed medically necessary for the child that their parent be with them at all times. Being a parent would be a logistics nightmare. Being a single parent with an infant would basically be impossible. But that’s what pet owners have to deal with unless they have their own car or are fine confining their pet to their house for their entire life. If this wasn’t already the norm it would be nuts.
  - nradov 6y ago
    In Vienna people can bring their dogs on public transit as long as they are leashed and muzzled. It seems to work fine.
  - jfim 6y ago
    > Basically everywhere where you aren’t required by law to allow animals refuses them because making even the smallest voluntary accommodations for people is just something that doesn’t happen. What about accommodations for people who are allergic to pets or have phobias about certain animals? Real service animals are specific breeds that are known to be trainable, docile, and are less likely to cause allergic reactions. They're a compromise that allows people who have certain disabilities to have a way to live a more normal life that they would not otherwise have access to. We can't fix blindness and many other disabilities, but service animals can help with improving the quality of life of people who are disabled. Pets aren't that though. They do provide companionship and enjoyment, but they're not necessary for providing assistance with basic needs like locomotion and navigation. They're not breeds that minimize the effects on people who have pet allergies, nor are they necessarily trained to behave properly in almost all situations. When people are putting a "service animal" vest on their pets, bringing them where they would normally not be allowed, and they cause trouble, it makes life harder for people who actually do need service animals for fulfilling their basic needs.
    - yostrovs 6y ago
      The writer you're replying to is saying that all the rules make it difficult for pet owners to obey them all. So they take any advantage they can. They're not trying to be law breakers. They're effectively put into a position, for example, that their dog lives a life only on a leash when outside or they go to the park and just let it run around. The park may not allow it, but many feel it's inhumane not to let a dog run free on a regular basis. I do that because my dog won't hurt anyone, and if someone in the park fears dogs, well, some people fear spiders.
      - jfim 6y ago
        Many dogs actually do stay leashed in cities and are only free to run in dog parks and in areas where they're allowed to. Those dogs seem fine. If some pet owners decide that the rules aren't for them, that's their choice. Part of living in a society is accepting that there are rules that are inconvenient, and still complying with them. It's definitely inconvenient to have to throw trash in the bin instead of tossing it on the ground, but if everybody did that, the parks would be full of trash, hence there's a "no littering" rule. Responsible things to do would be to check whether local parks allow unleashed dogs before getting one, getting a smaller breed of dog that would get enough exercise by walking leashed, going to the dog park, writing to the city hall that there should be more areas that allow unleashed dogs, or getting housing that would have enough of a back yard to allow the dog to run freely. Out of curiosity, do you believe that people who are scared of dogs are less entitled to use public spaces?
- xyzzy21 6y ago
  Legally it's simple - don't drive for Uber or Lyft.
  - dbuder 6y ago
    Oh look, a slightly difficult customer, this will hurt my expected hourly income, will Uber compensate me thus? Well since a real human never replies to my support tickets and they take no responsibility for anything that happens to me even when it is directly the fault of their app, no they won't = cancel and find another customer. When I had to suffer through driving for Uber I would sometimes hang up on people who called me and cancel the ride, because I don't want to do something out of the ordinary and waste time, explain how uber works or whatever, I want to get you and get rid of you. When you drive: Uber doesn't care about you, your customers actively work against you and lie about it, so you have to look after yourself. Need a pickup from Ikea? not in my car!
- bastawhiz 6y ago
  This seems like a really clear cut case: the woman in the article is blind. The drivers would have known that when they showed up and she has a geared-up guide dog and she can't see. If a driver cancels the ride at this point, there is no ambiguity that they're just shitty people: they're turning away a blind person because they don't want a dog in their car. Guide dogs (specifically for the blind) are some of the most well-trained animals on the planet, by far. This isn't an emotional support chihuahua. The woman both legally and _morally_ has the right to have her dog with her. And certainly, there's absolutely zero excuse for the one exceptionally awful driver mentioned in the article who dropped the woman off somewhere else and lied that she was at her destination just to end the ride early.
  - chii 6y ago
    > The drivers would have known that when they showed up and she has a geared-up guide dog and she can't see. If a driver cancels the ride at this point, there is no ambiguity that they're just shitty people but if the uber driver did not expect this, then aren't they getting a shitty deal if forced to accept the ride? If the blind person had to specify ahead of time that they have a service dog, and let the drivers accept it knowing so, then there shouldn't have been any problems. And if there's no drivers willing to accept this condition, then obviously the price is too low - the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle.
    - donmcronald 6y ago
      > the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle IMO the huge corporation making outsized profits is in the best position to absorb the increased cost, so if you mean Uber should pay their driver more and eat the loss, I agree. If you mean the disabled person should pay more, I don’t agree. Accommodating outliers with disabilities is one of the very few things a huge company can do better than a small business. It should be expected of them IMO.
      - 6y ago
- curryst 6y ago
  As far as I'm aware, pretending that your dog is a service animal when it is not is a fairly serious crime. In CA, it's up to a $1,000 fine and up to 6 months in jail. I don't know of anyone that has done that. Emotional Support Animals are different, and rampant, but they don't have nearly the same protections under the law. ESA's are not covered by the ADA, for example.
xyzzy21 6y ago
Several things about this: 1. Uber was already under a consent decree related to ADA violations when this both was happening and got filed. So this was already a known problem and executive management had AMPLE time to remedy it. This is mentioned at the end of the article. 2. Not mentioned was that this case was decided under Uber's own T&C-defined arbitration system (such systems are already biased against the consumer almost by definition) and yet that arbitrator found Uber's role so egregious that they awarded far more than was being sought! The thing is: the ethics and morals of executive leadership ALWAYS set the tone of how all employees behave. And when both executives and employees behave badly, then contract employees will either do the same or will run "open loop" and "roughshod" over customers and the community. Clearly that's what happened - Uber has a long reputation for such "bad acts" and unethical/immoral behavior so nothing new.
Barrin92 6y ago
>It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees. Another absolutely fantastic aspect of the gig economy, absolutely no sense of institutional responsibility from anyone. Just a giant game of musical chairs where everyone can point at everyone else. If a hotel discriminates because of disability or race or whatever else they risk the reputation of their entire business and trivial legal claims. If someone gets a racist Uber driver it's going to be 'they're just contractors dude, we don't know them!'. Shareholder capitalism at its finest. All of the profits, none of the accountability. I guess that is widely considered to be social progress nowadays. Yet another reason that Uber has given countries to make them treat their drivers as employees.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  This isn't specific to the gig economy? No one tends to jump at the chance to take responsibility for anything whether they are a company, charity, government, or small child.
- yunesj 6y ago
  Some contractors refuse to drive someone with a dog in their own car, even when refusing is illegal and against Uber policy. The person can sue the driver and Uber can take action against reported drivers. Is this only Uber’s fault because they have the deepest pockets? > racist drivers Uber has enabled servicing minority neighborhoods, following an era of medallion taxis that avoided those areas.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - notafraudster 6y ago
    As the arbitrator suggests, it's Uber's fault because when the complaints got to Uber, they developed a program to help drivers evade responsibility by teaching them how to more effectively deny service to the disabled; refused to remove drivers that violated their rules from their platform; and failed to abide by a previous settlement they had entered into for doing the exact same thing; and they did this to her specifically over a dozen times despite her repeatedly asking them for help and trying to work through the system.
brippalcharrid 6y ago
This issue is more of a hot potato than people seem to realize, because companies like Uber (inasmuch as they can exert direct control) are having to balance compliance with disability law with the religious sensibilities of their drivers in many cases (all against the backdrop of the dilution of categories of service/assistance/emotional support animals), and acknowledging what's happening would be uncomfortable, to say the least. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8066065/Moment-Uber-driver-refuses-ride-blind-mans-guide-dog-driving-off.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8066065/Moment-Uber...
- ShamelessC 6y ago
  What? This post didn't really make sense to me - sorry if I'm misunderstanding. Furthermore the article you linked is from a tabloid.

46 points by jeffwass 6y ago

“One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination.” Terrible

The issue specifically with the service animal is tough. I think people who benefit from legitimate service animals are seriously harmed by the people who claim their pet is a service animal so they can bring it with them. Anyone can buy a “service animal” vest on Amazon. And under the ADA, it’s basically illegal to even ask if it’s a legitimate service animal - you can ask “which tasks is it trained to perform?” The drivers are in a tough spot given that they’ve probably had poorly trained pets in their cars that were passed off as service animals.

Spivak 6y ago
The flip side of this is that modern life is really really unfriendly to people with pets. I don’t have a pet, don’t want one either so I have no horse in this race. Basically everywhere where you aren’t required by law to allow animals refuses them because making even the smallest voluntary accommodations for people is just something that doesn’t happen. The service animal thing is just a loophole to allow people to bring their pets on available-to-the-public transport the way car owners can. Because if you aren’t in walking distance to a dog park and don’t own a car sucks for you I guess. I don’t think anyone is arguing that untrained animals should just be let to run wild at malls but the blanket refusals that happen don’t even allow for the possibility of well-behaved animals. Like it would be an absolutely crazy world if every single business and all transportation refused to allow children unless it was deemed medically necessary for the child that their parent be with them at all times. Being a parent would be a logistics nightmare. Being a single parent with an infant would basically be impossible. But that’s what pet owners have to deal with unless they have their own car or are fine confining their pet to their house for their entire life. If this wasn’t already the norm it would be nuts.
- nradov 6y ago
  In Vienna people can bring their dogs on public transit as long as they are leashed and muzzled. It seems to work fine.
- jfim 6y ago
  > Basically everywhere where you aren’t required by law to allow animals refuses them because making even the smallest voluntary accommodations for people is just something that doesn’t happen. What about accommodations for people who are allergic to pets or have phobias about certain animals? Real service animals are specific breeds that are known to be trainable, docile, and are less likely to cause allergic reactions. They're a compromise that allows people who have certain disabilities to have a way to live a more normal life that they would not otherwise have access to. We can't fix blindness and many other disabilities, but service animals can help with improving the quality of life of people who are disabled. Pets aren't that though. They do provide companionship and enjoyment, but they're not necessary for providing assistance with basic needs like locomotion and navigation. They're not breeds that minimize the effects on people who have pet allergies, nor are they necessarily trained to behave properly in almost all situations. When people are putting a "service animal" vest on their pets, bringing them where they would normally not be allowed, and they cause trouble, it makes life harder for people who actually do need service animals for fulfilling their basic needs.
  - yostrovs 6y ago
    The writer you're replying to is saying that all the rules make it difficult for pet owners to obey them all. So they take any advantage they can. They're not trying to be law breakers. They're effectively put into a position, for example, that their dog lives a life only on a leash when outside or they go to the park and just let it run around. The park may not allow it, but many feel it's inhumane not to let a dog run free on a regular basis. I do that because my dog won't hurt anyone, and if someone in the park fears dogs, well, some people fear spiders.
    - jfim 6y ago
      Many dogs actually do stay leashed in cities and are only free to run in dog parks and in areas where they're allowed to. Those dogs seem fine. If some pet owners decide that the rules aren't for them, that's their choice. Part of living in a society is accepting that there are rules that are inconvenient, and still complying with them. It's definitely inconvenient to have to throw trash in the bin instead of tossing it on the ground, but if everybody did that, the parks would be full of trash, hence there's a "no littering" rule. Responsible things to do would be to check whether local parks allow unleashed dogs before getting one, getting a smaller breed of dog that would get enough exercise by walking leashed, going to the dog park, writing to the city hall that there should be more areas that allow unleashed dogs, or getting housing that would have enough of a back yard to allow the dog to run freely. Out of curiosity, do you believe that people who are scared of dogs are less entitled to use public spaces?
xyzzy21 6y ago
Legally it's simple - don't drive for Uber or Lyft.
- dbuder 6y ago
  Oh look, a slightly difficult customer, this will hurt my expected hourly income, will Uber compensate me thus? Well since a real human never replies to my support tickets and they take no responsibility for anything that happens to me even when it is directly the fault of their app, no they won't = cancel and find another customer. When I had to suffer through driving for Uber I would sometimes hang up on people who called me and cancel the ride, because I don't want to do something out of the ordinary and waste time, explain how uber works or whatever, I want to get you and get rid of you. When you drive: Uber doesn't care about you, your customers actively work against you and lie about it, so you have to look after yourself. Need a pickup from Ikea? not in my car!
bastawhiz 6y ago
This seems like a really clear cut case: the woman in the article is blind. The drivers would have known that when they showed up and she has a geared-up guide dog and she can't see. If a driver cancels the ride at this point, there is no ambiguity that they're just shitty people: they're turning away a blind person because they don't want a dog in their car. Guide dogs (specifically for the blind) are some of the most well-trained animals on the planet, by far. This isn't an emotional support chihuahua. The woman both legally and _morally_ has the right to have her dog with her. And certainly, there's absolutely zero excuse for the one exceptionally awful driver mentioned in the article who dropped the woman off somewhere else and lied that she was at her destination just to end the ride early.
- chii 6y ago
  > The drivers would have known that when they showed up and she has a geared-up guide dog and she can't see. If a driver cancels the ride at this point, there is no ambiguity that they're just shitty people but if the uber driver did not expect this, then aren't they getting a shitty deal if forced to accept the ride? If the blind person had to specify ahead of time that they have a service dog, and let the drivers accept it knowing so, then there shouldn't have been any problems. And if there's no drivers willing to accept this condition, then obviously the price is too low - the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle.
  - donmcronald 6y ago
    > the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle IMO the huge corporation making outsized profits is in the best position to absorb the increased cost, so if you mean Uber should pay their driver more and eat the loss, I agree. If you mean the disabled person should pay more, I don’t agree. Accommodating outliers with disabilities is one of the very few things a huge company can do better than a small business. It should be expected of them IMO.
    - 6y ago
curryst 6y ago
As far as I'm aware, pretending that your dog is a service animal when it is not is a fairly serious crime. In CA, it's up to a $1,000 fine and up to 6 months in jail. I don't know of anyone that has done that. Emotional Support Animals are different, and rampant, but they don't have nearly the same protections under the law. ESA's are not covered by the ADA, for example.

xyzzy21 6y ago

Several things about this: 1. Uber was already under a consent decree related to ADA violations when this both was happening and got filed. So this was already a known problem and executive management had AMPLE time to remedy it. This is mentioned at the end of the article. 2. Not mentioned was that this case was decided under Uber's own T&C-defined arbitration system (such systems are already biased against the consumer almost by definition) and yet that arbitrator found Uber's role so egregious that they awarded far more than was being sought! The thing is: the ethics and morals of executive leadership ALWAYS set the tone of how all employees behave. And when both executives and employees behave badly, then contract employees will either do the same or will run "open loop" and "roughshod" over customers and the community. Clearly that's what happened - Uber has a long reputation for such "bad acts" and unethical/immoral behavior so nothing new.

Barrin92 6y ago

>It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees. Another absolutely fantastic aspect of the gig economy, absolutely no sense of institutional responsibility from anyone. Just a giant game of musical chairs where everyone can point at everyone else. If a hotel discriminates because of disability or race or whatever else they risk the reputation of their entire business and trivial legal claims. If someone gets a racist Uber driver it's going to be 'they're just contractors dude, we don't know them!'. Shareholder capitalism at its finest. All of the profits, none of the accountability. I guess that is widely considered to be social progress nowadays. Yet another reason that Uber has given countries to make them treat their drivers as employees.

missedthecue 6y ago
This isn't specific to the gig economy? No one tends to jump at the chance to take responsibility for anything whether they are a company, charity, government, or small child.
yunesj 6y ago
Some contractors refuse to drive someone with a dog in their own car, even when refusing is illegal and against Uber policy. The person can sue the driver and Uber can take action against reported drivers. Is this only Uber’s fault because they have the deepest pockets? > racist drivers Uber has enabled servicing minority neighborhoods, following an era of medallion taxis that avoided those areas.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- notafraudster 6y ago
  As the arbitrator suggests, it's Uber's fault because when the complaints got to Uber, they developed a program to help drivers evade responsibility by teaching them how to more effectively deny service to the disabled; refused to remove drivers that violated their rules from their platform; and failed to abide by a previous settlement they had entered into for doing the exact same thing; and they did this to her specifically over a dozen times despite her repeatedly asking them for help and trying to work through the system.

brippalcharrid 6y ago

This issue is more of a hot potato than people seem to realize, because companies like Uber (inasmuch as they can exert direct control) are having to balance compliance with disability law with the religious sensibilities of their drivers in many cases (all against the backdrop of the dilution of categories of service/assistance/emotional support animals), and acknowledging what's happening would be uncomfortable, to say the least. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8066065/Moment-Uber-driver-refuses-ride-blind-mans-guide-dog-driving-off.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8066065/Moment-Uber...

ShamelessC 6y ago
What? This post didn't really make sense to me - sorry if I'm misunderstanding. Furthermore the article you linked is from a tabloid.