25 ms·

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

273 points by choppaface 6y ago

benatkin 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. I feel like money would be better spent raising awareness of service dogs and dealing with fraudulent (they do call it fraud, right?) service dogs than fining Uber.
- hartator 6y ago
  Yes, makes no sense that anyone can register their pet as emotional support.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    The ADA does not require any registration of any service animal. Everyone is expected to accept the service animal’s owner claim that the service animal is a service animal without proof.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      If someone shows up with something that couldn't legally be a service animal (e.g. a bunny) or cannot respond adequately as to how the dog has been trained to perform a specific task, then they may have grounds to refuse to admit the dog. https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA? A. No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. However, some State or local governments have laws that allow people to take emotional support animals into public places. You may check with your State and local government agencies to find out about these laws. Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal? A. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        I’m familiar with those guidelines, but effectively, anyone can say anything, and the last sentence shows that you basically have to take their word for it (unless you want to risk getting involved in a costly legal matter). I know you don’t have to take lizards as service animals, but you do basically have to take chihuahuas or Pomeranians or pit bulls or Rottweilers or whatever as service dogs, and maybe miniature horses. > Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability. Miniature horses here: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
        mlyle 6y ago
        First section of your link: > Beginning on March 15, 2011, only dogs are recognized as service animals under titles II and III of the ADA And thus now miniature horses are under a much more strict regulatory regime.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        Pfhreak 6y ago
        Yes, you do have to take their word for it. If the dog is disruptive (e.g. barking or not housetrained), you can ask them to leave. The dog must be under control by the owner at all times. Dogs must (generally) remain on the floor or on the owner (and not in a shopping cart). Seating, food, drink, and other amenities are for the person, not the dog. In practice, asking these two questions and understanding the limits of where you can intervene is sufficient in 99% of cases. > you do basically have to take chihuahuas or Pomeranians or pit bulls or Rottweilers or whatever as service dogs Why is this a problem? Different breeds have different characteristics, and there are a variety of reasons to have a service dog -- from PTSD to blindness to diabetes.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - mlyle 6y ago
    Emotional support animals are not legally service animals and there is no grant of access to places of public accommodation, etc.
  - adoxyz 6y ago
    Emotional support animal =/= service dog. Service dogs are specially trained for a job and cost upwards of $25-30k to train and maintain their training. Emotional support animals don't require any training and don't have nearly as many rights as a proper service dog.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      Note that someone disabled can train the service dog themselves, though-- there's no certification, requirement of specific breed, etc.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Yes but you also don't have to prove that your dog is the latter, so...
      - adoxyz 6y ago
        Many states have started implementing laws against falsely claiming service dogs. https://www.animallaw.info/content/fraudulent-service-dogs https://www.animallaw.info/content/fraudulent-service-dogs
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        I don't see how an unenforceable law would help deter people who want to claim a non service animal as a service animal. As mlyle notes above, there is no formalized certification or training process required by ADA, so anyone can claim they have PTSD and they trained their dog to be a service animal to help them with their PTSD. What is anyone going to be able to do about that?
  - xahrepap 6y ago
    My understanding isn't that they're not actually "registering" anything. But rather just putting a piece of cloth they bought on amazon on their animal they and claiming it to be so. They're abusing a part of the law most people don't understand (and most companies don't want to add to the drama of even if they do). IANAL, but it was explained to me that you cannot ask basically anything about service animals, other than one thing: "What is your service animal trained to do?". Apparently, service animals are supposed to be trained to do one specific task for their owner. Otherwise, they're not actually service animals. Allowing that question allows companies to verify that the animal is actually a service animal... without offending the people who require the animal. I was talking to a friend of mine who works for a museum of sorts. These not-service animals are causing problems for them. But they are strictly forbidden to say or do anything about any pet being claimed to be a service animal. I suspect it's because they either (a) don't understand the law, and so they're trying to avoid being liable to anything, and/or (b) they don't care enough and just want to avoid the drama the fraudsters will cause. I've read comments from people with actual service animals saying they wish companies (airports, etc) would crack down on it though. Because these untrained animals are making their own very expensive animals look bad. AND the untrained animals will yip and snap and pester the real service animals.
- mlyle 6y ago
  Note that Uber wasn't fined. They were ordered to pay her attorney costs (which are high in part because Uber complicated the litigation) and damages to her.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- igneo676 6y ago
  In practice, I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about service dog misrepresentation. When I was trained in restaurants to deal with (potential) service dogs, the extent to which I was allowed to ask any questions was "Is that a service dog?". As long as the answer was "Yes", I was to leave them alone. No questions asked. Anything else supposedly opened you to litigation Edit: Looks like there's a separate thread with additional ADA info. Tl;dr - nothing you can do to stop people misrepresenting their dogs as service animals.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
sneak 6y ago
This pales in comparison to some of the stories I've heard from women regarding the sexually aggressive and harassing behavior they've experienced from (always male) Uber drivers, often on the way home late at night (where the driver gets to see their home address). This isn't apparently a firing offense at Uber.
- airstrike 6y ago
  Perhaps, but that's entirely off-topic
  - sneak 6y ago
    Is it? I think it falls squarely on the topic of "Uber drivers breaking the law and Uber choosing to not deal with it (to the detriment of riders) 'because contractors'", that is, just what TFA is about.
    - fastball 6y ago
      I don't really understand how that is Uber's responsibility though. If a crime is committed, that crime should be reported and the police should investigate and take action based on the result of said investigation. Probably reasonable to suspend people pending the outcome of the investigation, but not sure unilateral action is warranted on the part of the company. We have processes for a reason.
- mrweasel 6y ago
  The fact that others have worse problems does not negate the illegal treatment of a blind woman. There is a terrible tendency to brush of problems by pointing other issues.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Oh, I don't mean to negate, but to amplify. There is definitely a huge problem with Uber not doing enough to ensure their drivers aren't breaking the law.
rectang 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 example of how rideshare companies attempt to offload risk and liability onto individual drivers who are generally unprepared and unaware that this is happening. Insurance is a more important example (most rideshare drivers are not properly insured), but this legal play illustrates strategic consistency by Uber.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Are you saying that the drivers didn't know what they were doing to this woman was wrong? Or are you claiming Uber told the drivers to mistreat her?
  - scsilver 6y ago
    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 legal argument why they arent responsible, but that doesnt mean they are socially responsible to its users, shareholders and other stakeholders. Even then, the courts have made their order, so it looks like their arguments were legally insufficient. Its hard for me to defend a system that blatently hurts the disabled then tries to argue a loophole around the ADA. They even have a link declaring how much they care about providing accessibility https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility . All this lip service and they wont take responsibility for a blind woman being stranded multiple times, because she was stranded by their "contractor".
    - valuearb 6y ago
      What externalities?
      - 6y ago
belinder 6y ago
Does an uber driver know when they accept a ride that the rider has a dog with them?
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  It shouldn't matter. As they say in the article, "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." If the driver isn't willing to comply with the regulations, then they shouldn't broadcast their services on Uber.
  - pygy_ 6y ago
    You are getting downvoted for mysterious reasons, you are of course correct, and this is why the plaintif was awarded $1.1m...
  - wccrawford 6y ago
    Uber is required to provide service to that person. An individual driver is not required to. If that particular driver can't, Uber still has to provide that service for the passenger.
    - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
      This doesn't make sense to me. If a driver isn't capable or willing to be ADA compliant, then why are they driving other people? They shouldn't be.
      - wccrawford 6y ago
        That's saying that people with disabilities shouldn't ever do jobs unless they can do 100% of the job. Instead, the ADA says that companies must make reasonable accomodations for the employee. In this case, it means drivers with allergies don't have to take animals in their cars. For someone with a back injury, it might mean they can stock shelves so long as items are kept under a certain weight. There are plenty of instances of people with disabilities not having to do the full job, because they can do most of the job.
1023bytes 6y ago
She didn't get $1.1m, the settlement was $324,000 in damages plus legal expenses of $805,313. That kind of changes the narrative in my opinion.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Lawyers gotta eat so they can chase them ambulances ...
  - paulgb 6y ago
    It seems like a lot, but if they are only paid when they win, the price has to take into account the risk they are taking by going up against a company like Uber that has a huge vested interest in not losing cases like this. If their chance of success going in is 25%, expenses are $100k, 2-3 lawyers contributed etc. it doesn’t seem like such a case of highway robbery (no idea if these numbers are realistic)
    - elil17 6y ago
      Their chances of success going in are much, much higher. Law firms won’t take a case unless they think they can get something out of it, like a cash settlement. This particular case was very very strong. $100k expenses are realistic, but only because many law firms choose to have extravagant offices and ridiculous corporate retreats. The firm is billing $500/hour - that may be the going rate, but it doesn’t change the fact that lawyers get rich while the people they’re supposed to represent aren’t fairly compensated for the harm that is done to them. The $1.1m was supposed to represent the damage that the canceled Uber rides did to her career, and now that’s damage that will never fully be made up to her.
- notimetorelax 6y ago
  Maybe, but I’m glad lawyers took her case, helped her win, and then got paid for it. Ruling itself may extend to future rides and help the blind community.
- marshmallow_12 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bgorman 6y ago
I think anyone who has taken Uber and Lyft a lot knows that they allow drivers to abuse the system for their benefit, with no recourse for riders. A few incidents that have bothered me: 1. Having an Uber refuse to take me to the airport from downtown Chicago 2. Lyft not giving me an automatic refund for a pickup in SOMA when the driver had been heading down 101 for 10 minutes and was showing no signs of turning around. 3. Every Uber driver cancelling rides at LAX to force surge pricing. I'm not suprised that Uber drivers do not want to deal with riders with disabilities. Since Uber and Lyft are not profitable they can't even afford to kick any drivers off the platform other than drivers that pose a risk of physical danger to passengers. Until Uber and Lyft implement a system that actually can result in negative consequences for unethical drivers, I have no sympathy for any losses these companies incur.
- fastball 6y ago
  So the bad behavior is on the part of the drivers, not the company, but you prefer the company to get punished?
  - shuntress 6y ago
    The drivers represent the company and all interactions with the driver are setup through the company. So, yes. ie: If a driver snatches my backpack and drives away, I expect Uber to replace/return what was stolen from me by their contractor. Not for them to just tell me to take a hike and deal with it myself.
    - fastball 6y ago
      So there is absolutely nothing a company can do to absolve themselves of the poor behavior of employees? By that system, Uber would still be at fault if they explicitly told all drivers "you are not allowed to deny service to someone with a service dog under any circumstances", and a driver did anyway.
      - airstrike 6y ago
snurfer 6y ago
Most of the money went to the attorneys. "Irving took legal action against Uber, resulting in an arbitrator this month awarding her $324,000 in damages plus legal expenses of $805,313" https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-drivers-refused-rides-to-this-blind-woman-16068416.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-drivers-re...
- jagger27 6y ago
  Can you successfully fight Uber’s über legal team for under a million? Seems cheap to me.
  - kumarvvr 6y ago
    Can a judicial system be sane enough that big organizations cannot leverage deep pockets to delay justice?
  - snurfer 6y ago
    I guess it depends on how you define "successfully".
jagger27 6y ago
“One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination.” That’s particularly awful and cruel. It must be extremely disorienting and stressful for a blind person to be put in that situation.
- EugeneOZ 6y ago
  Yeah, after reading this I can't forget it. Not sure what kind of animal one needs to be to do this.
  - elil17 6y ago
    Well perhaps it is because Uber pays their drivers poverty wages. I can imagine a driver taking advantage of a passenger because they need food or shelter for themselves or their family. Obviously it’s cruel to do this to a blind passenger, but I think the fundamental moral problem is really with the decision makers at Uber not with the driver.
    - ecf 6y ago
      If you remove all forms of monetary persuasion and simply look at this from the perspective of a human being, the driver is a monster.
      - elil17 6y ago
        But the monetary aspect exists, there’s no way to ignore how little Uber drivers are paid. Full time drivers earn about $30k/year without any benefits in San Francisco. That’s less than half of the poverty line for an individual and less than a third for a family of four. A person earning that little money in SF is likely to be in a really really desperate financial situation - possibly homeless. Yes, doing that to someone is wrong. It’s absolutely wrong. But I just can’t ignore the people who put the driver in that situation and the culpability they have here.
        6y ago
ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
> "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 to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic.
- shuntress 6y ago
  This is equivalent to a landlord saying "Sorry, it's to expensive to build wheel chair ramps. So we didn't build any" According to Uber, you need to call up another driver and get them to come take over for you because Uber will not.
  - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
    If you're building a new building you should be required to have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't really a thing, so it's okay to require them. If you have an old building it's on the government to provide the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain buildings to standards at the same time.
    - shuntress 6y ago
      I don't think there was anyone signed up as a driver with Uber before the ADA existed but for the sake of argument, we can assume those people exist. Yes, I agree that they should receive government-funded training that teaches them to tolerate a service dog in their car. Every who signs up to be an Uber driver after the signing of the ADA must be capable of transporting service dogs.
      - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
        That kind of policy means that people with PTSD from dogs who are desperate for a job will sign up and WILL experience PTSD and WILL endanger riders. It's a shitty policy IMO.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kumarvvr 6y ago
Well, as always, lawyers take the juicy bits, leaving the actual victim with peanuts. Justice, is increasingly costly.
- fastball 6y ago
  If $324,000 is peanuts then I think my nut allergy just went away.
- teachrdan 6y ago
  I wouldn't say that $324,000 is "peanuts." Especially considering that, in most cases, that money is not taxed because it is compensation, not earnings. The amount the plaintiff won in this case is equal to 8 or 9 years of (pre-tax!) mean or median income for a blind person in the US: https://nfb.org//images/nfb/publications/jbir/jbir15/jbir050202.html https://nfb.org//images/nfb/publications/jbir/jbir15/jbir050...
  - Dirlewanger 6y ago
    ~30% of a settlement is peanuts though. Also, do people have to pay taxes on these earnings? There goes ~30% of that if so.
jedberg 6y ago
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 while I strap in the carseat. I'm really good at it, but it still takes an extra minute or so to strap in the seat and then strap the child into the seat. The apps need a way for me to say "I have a carseat" or "I have a service animal" and then give a bonus to the driver for picking me up. Incentivize the driver to want to come get me, and compensate them for the extra time. I'd gladly pay and extra "carseat fee" so that I don't get an unhappy driver who gives me one star just because they had to wait for me. And in the case of the service animal, they shouldn't have the option to reject the ride and the rider should not get charged extra, but Uber/Lyft should have to compensate the driver for taking that ride as a cost the rideshare companies bear under the ADA.
- paulcole 6y ago
  > The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in their app No. The real problem is that a person with a disability was denied service in violation of the ADA. There's no setting in the app that prevents a driver from saying (as they should), "Get in."
  - spuz 6y ago
    Exactly. As the article says: > In 2014, The National Federation of the Blind in the US sued the ride-sharing app over guide-dog regulations. > The case was settled in 2017 when Uber agreed to ensure its drivers knew they were legally obliged to provide service to people with guide dogs. So Uber have clearly failed to train their drivers to treat disabled passengers in the right way. There are definitely lots of problems that could be solved with a better UI but this isn't one of them.
- sorokod 6y ago
  The way you phrase it makes it sound like a UI issue. It is probably more accurate to say that Uber chooses to not provide this sort of functionality.
throwaway4good 6y ago
A blind woman who was refused rides on 14 occasions - did this happen only to her? Or is it a broaded problem ... I cannot imagine she would be the only blind person taking an uber ...
- EugeneOZ 6y ago
  Maybe not everyone is brave enough to sue giants? Look at the lawyers share size.
- shariqm 6y ago
  Yeah, this isn't the first time: https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-of-california-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/#settlement https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-o...
ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
Yeah, but most of that goes to...anyone? Bueller? THE LAWYERS! > She was awarded $324,000 in damages and more than $800,000 in attorney fees and court costs, according to the arbitrator's award posted online by her attorneys. That's from the CNN variant of the story. To be fair, they likely earned it, in this case. It seems to have taken a while. https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/business/uber-blind-passenger-arbitration-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/business/uber-blind-passenger...
- akiselev 6y ago
  The awards were separate, one for damages and another for services rendered by her legal team. She could have won the damages and received nothing for the rest, in which case she would be net negative 500k or so. It doesn't look like an ambulance chaser case where the she agreed to give the lawyers 2/3 of the damages. Does go to show you how crazy expensive real litigation is. From the document her team posted: > She is awarded the relief requested in her Post-Hearing Brief, including her damages in the amount of $324,000 plus attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs in the amount of $805,313.45 which, though high, reflects the high quality of legal work done in this case.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
    Agreed. She ended up making money. And Uber needs to give a bit more training to their drivers about ADA. 1.1M is under-the-couch-cushions for Uber, but the publicity cost them a lot more.
maxharris 6y ago
I'd like to go out on a limb and say that I don't agree with the ADA. I don't think any private person or organization should be compelled to provide facilities or services for anyone else, regardless of what their need is. I have no animus toward people with disabilities - I'm just saying that no one should be forced to help anyone else. If you want to do something for someone else's benefit, you should be free to do so, at your own expense. When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act. No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen. When you help a friend, you are involved in his life. Because you're there, you get the reward of achieving a personal value of your own. You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life, which helps you be a better friend. When you try to coerce a group, you have no knowledge of the actual impact your rule actually has on anyone. And because you're not in the loop, it takes a great deal longer to change your rules. This ends up hurting more people than you help. EDIT: downvoting me won't change my mind, but it will make me try even harder to spread the above message
- Karunamon 6y ago
  On pure principle I kind of agree, but the reason that the ADA exists is because people with disabilities that require things like ramps and big bathroom stalls with grab bars are not a significant enough market segment to pressure businesses to offer them; the end result of which is that accommodations would not exist otherwise. This is the necessary kind of regulation that shores up a hole that free markets wouldn't solve on their own. Accommodating disabilities isn't profitable.
- neom 6y ago
  How would you think about the best way to provide services to members of our society that are less able than others?
- orf 6y ago
  > When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act > No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen. > You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life, which helps you be a better friend. > This ends up hurting more people than you help. What an absolutely mind numblingly self centered and brain-dead take. It's got nothing to do with the "noble act" or other such nonsense. They are there so that people with disabilities don't end up living a second class existence, locked out of large parts of modern life, because it is not economically sensible to add disabled access to your building or service for the very small percentage of potential customers who need it.
BoiledCabbage 6y ago
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 to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic. You should take that into consideration before taking on a job that might require you to drive around dogs. As a country we decided long time ago, that people who require seeing-eye dogs shouldn't be subjected to substandard treatment by society - as was the case before the law protected the visually impaired. If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs.
- lupire 6y ago
  The ADA applies to workers too. A dog allergy is a disability.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    It has been ruled that fear of dogs or allergies to dogs is not sufficient reason to deny service to someone with a service dog. https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
    - anonymousab 6y ago
      I think a deathly allergy would qualify as a 'legitimate safety requirement'. There are also situations in which the ADA considers an allergy itself to be a disability, though the given examples are usually around food allergies.
      - Miner49er 6y ago
        I don't see that language anywhere except for the case of miniature horses?
lacker 6y ago
I'm surprised that the law requires you to allow dogs in your car. It's one thing for a public space, but for a private service it seems like it should be okay to have a no-dogs-allowed rule.
- kbar13 6y ago
  your choice here is that you dont have to drive for rideshare, knowing that you don't want dogs in the car. because the ability to choose goes both ways. and because the industry is unregulated, the company isn't required to do anything like add a flag for a driver to avoid having to pick up dogs
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  You can have a no dogs rule. You just can't have a "No service dogs" rule. Service dogs are essential to the welfare of their humans, denying them would be like having a "no glasses" or "no canes" or "no pacemakers" rule disallowing folks who need assistance. Yes, there are limits, especially if the area is dangerous or the dog is disruptive, but generally that dog should be considered to be a tool the human is using.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  Service dogs aren't dogs, they are medical devices. A car used in ride share isn't a private space any longer, it's quasi-public. The law (at least in the USA) is very clear, you can not restrict access of medical devices (whether service dogs or wheelchairs) in businesses.
shariqm 6y ago
Uber settled a case similar to this in 2016 [1,2] and agreed to "Require that drivers provide equal service to people with disabilities who travel with service animals." Seems like they haven't learned their lesson, and this minor new $1.1M fee is unlikely to change their behaviour. OTOH, from a Teacher of the Visually Impaired (TVI) I know: - "It’s challenging. I think they need to make it really clear this is part of their job. It’s common for people not to allow dogs in their car, just in general. On top of that, they employ a lot of people who don’t speak english and people from several cultures who would never have a dog in the car." [1] https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-of-california-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/#settlement https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-o... [2] https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf
Miner49er 6y ago
Unless Uber fixes this, it seems like a way to get some money if you have a disability. 1) Train or buy a service dog for your disability. 2) Request an Uber with your service dog, record what happens when the driver shows up. Assuming Uber doesn't fix this, many drivers will probably deny service. 3) Repeat a couple dozen times. 4) Contact a lawyer 5) Profit?
- Ansil849 6y ago
  This is an extremely callous comment. Discrimination happens regularly to those with disabilities without needing to go out of their way to concoct such a scenario - it happens organically every day, due to people like that Uber driver mentioned ("One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination.") being trash.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    Depends on the disability, I think. I have a disability per the ADA, and have considered getting a service dog. But me not being able to take my service dog would be nothing but an inconvenience, whereas for someone blind it is obviously much worse then that. I don't see how I'm being callous, I think people doing this would force Uber to implement a fix, which is good for people with disabilities. Uber needs to be punished for this until it is fixed.
knz_ 6y ago
There's no reason for disabled people to be taking Ubers. Drivers are not trained nor willing to handle disabled passengers in many cases. They often have smaller vehicles for economy/poverty reasons that not equipped to carry wheelchairs and the like. Service animals are similarly not wanted, because the driver needs to be made whole if they have an 'accident' in the vehicle. The uber cleaning fee does not even come close to the amount of lost time and money that comes when these things happen. Medicare/medicaid should be covering these people's cost of transportation, the cost should not be forced onto random kids driving uber for side money who are wholly untrained in how to deal with a disabled persons needs.
florin_g 6y ago
As a homebuilder, 100% of labor is done by subcontractors. For me to blame subs for any issue is beyond comprehension. What makes Uber different?
kart23 6y ago
>The ADA makes it unlawful to require proof of a disability or identification for a service dog. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there are no requirements for licensing, certification or identification of service dogs. Also, service animals are not required to wear special collars, vests or harnesses. I never really knew about this. Technically you could just bring your dog into any business and claim its a service animal when asked. If the dog is being unruly businesses can exclude you, but it would be an ADA violation to refuse entry. Quite interesting.
- m-ee 6y ago
  They are allowed to ask if the dog is trained to perform a specific task which would differentiate a guide dog or medical alert dog that can’t be refused entry from an emotional support animal that can.
  - kart23 6y ago
    They're not allowed to ask you/the dog to demonstrate though. Someone could just say yes or make something up. It's lying, but the business can't really do anything about it. > Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task. https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
    - m-ee 6y ago
      Sure people could always lie. In practice I’ve seen people say it’s an emotional support animal or produce their doctors note for it, which somewhat ironically confirms it’s not actually a service dog.
      - kart23 6y ago
        yeah, that's exactly what I'd expect from those types of people.
TheMagicHorsey 6y ago
This is easily solved by giving drivers bonuses for taking passengers that require more onboarding and offboarding time. When you don't see such simple, market-based solutions, you can be sure there's a regulatory reason for it. And sure enough, in this case Lyft and Uber can't do the common sense thing and evaluate a passenger's time to onboard and offboard and raise the price accordingly, because of the ADA.
chrisBob 6y ago
I am amazed that Uber still exists. Of course a blind woman was refused rides. Their goal is to be a taxi service minus that ignores the regulations that were added to taxi services for a reason. As a large healthy white male I know I could probably use Uber safely, but I refuse to support a business that makes rides much worse and more dangerous for those that are more vulnerable. Taxis seem bad enough with the oversight in place.
- xmprt 6y ago
  While I agree that Uber could have done more here, I'm not sure why you think taxis would be better. If 14 individual yellow cab taxis refused to pick up a passenger, it wouldn't be a story. Apps can also track your location for safety, allow you to report drivers, and help you get picked up from anywhere (instead of having to risk going to a busy street where taxis might roam). The way I see it, Uber is super helpful for people with disabilities.
jariel 6y ago
"One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination." What is wrong with people? I can understand something like this maybe happening once? But that this happened 14 times makes me lose faith in people. Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops.
- teddyh 6y ago
  > Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops. Empathy is built on the premise of relative economic equality.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Basic civility existed for thousands of years before abstract notions of 'economic equality'. That's an ideological idea that's nuance and I'm not sure most people even buy into as it's stated. My grandparents were born on farms without plumbing or running water, so was everyone in the area. They had incredible dignity, civility, kindness (although a kind of emotionally distant version of it). Yes, there would have been some ideals of 'equal before the law' or 'before God', and some notion of fairness about individuals amassing fortunes on the backs of others, surely, but not an ideological ideal of 'economic equality' and certainly not 'equity' as it's used today. Not dropping blind people of 'just anywhere' is something people 3000 years ago would have understood quite well to be wrong.
- asdff 6y ago
  >Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops. Case in point, how many people have been griping about wearing a cloth mask, like some toddler who refuses to put on pants.
cwhiz 6y ago
Ah a mere 0.006% of their 2020 revenue. I am sure that Uber has learned their lesson.
Simulacra 6y ago
This also occurs with taxi cabs as a Google search shows. This is absolutely something Lyft/Uber should be taking into account in their apps, but I think it could go even further. Female passengers can prefer a female driver; yes male can prefer male. Notify the driver ahead of time I have a dog, I have a child, I'm blind, I'm sweating like a beast please For the love of God turn on the a/c, etc. I'm surprised but also not, and saddened that in 2021 this is still an issue.
lebuffon 6y ago
The elephant in the room is that some cultures consider dogs unclean. What to do when you as the driver, are a member of that culture and the rider wants to bring a dog into your taxi. I suspect a royal chaos ensues...
- duxup 6y ago
  I would argue that a combo of the ADA and the nature of providing transit services would ... pretty much mean that working in transit is a choice that has a high likelihood of interacting with dogs... and that's on that person for making that choice. And most religions while they have restrictions about X, Y, Z are also generally forgiving of happenstance, accidental religious rules violations, and just the necessities of living with others people.
duxup 6y ago
I recall a couple cities where folks proposed Uber / Lyft as a sort of public transit option or just filling the gap of public transit and etc. Can't really do that if they simply won't / argue they don't have to serve some members of the public ...
- intrasight 6y ago
  That a bit different a situation. The municipality would have a contract with a private company to provide public transportation services. Like with any such contracts, the recipient would have to abide by all specified regulations and also would have to hit performance milestones in order to get paid and/or renewed.
  - duxup 6y ago
    That doesn't jive with Ubers legal argument. >it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees That's not likely to change contract or not...
shuntress 6y ago
Uber is just going to add (in the driver signup forms) a checkbox labeled "I agree to comply fully with all ADA requirements" and link to a big confusing document that no driver will ever read then whenever a driver is sued for failure to comply with ADA regulations Uber will hang them out to dry because they are a "contractor" not an "employee"

273 points by choppaface 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. I feel like money would be better spent raising awareness of service dogs and dealing with fraudulent (they do call it fraud, right?) service dogs than fining Uber.

hartator 6y ago
Yes, makes no sense that anyone can register their pet as emotional support.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The ADA does not require any registration of any service animal. Everyone is expected to accept the service animal’s owner claim that the service animal is a service animal without proof.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    If someone shows up with something that couldn't legally be a service animal (e.g. a bunny) or cannot respond adequately as to how the dog has been trained to perform a specific task, then they may have grounds to refuse to admit the dog. https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA? A. No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. However, some State or local governments have laws that allow people to take emotional support animals into public places. You may check with your State and local government agencies to find out about these laws. Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal? A. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I’m familiar with those guidelines, but effectively, anyone can say anything, and the last sentence shows that you basically have to take their word for it (unless you want to risk getting involved in a costly legal matter). I know you don’t have to take lizards as service animals, but you do basically have to take chihuahuas or Pomeranians or pit bulls or Rottweilers or whatever as service dogs, and maybe miniature horses. > Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability. Miniature horses here: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
      - mlyle 6y ago
        First section of your link: > Beginning on March 15, 2011, only dogs are recognized as service animals under titles II and III of the ADA And thus now miniature horses are under a much more strict regulatory regime.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        Yes, you do have to take their word for it. If the dog is disruptive (e.g. barking or not housetrained), you can ask them to leave. The dog must be under control by the owner at all times. Dogs must (generally) remain on the floor or on the owner (and not in a shopping cart). Seating, food, drink, and other amenities are for the person, not the dog. In practice, asking these two questions and understanding the limits of where you can intervene is sufficient in 99% of cases. > you do basically have to take chihuahuas or Pomeranians or pit bulls or Rottweilers or whatever as service dogs Why is this a problem? Different breeds have different characteristics, and there are a variety of reasons to have a service dog -- from PTSD to blindness to diabetes.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- mlyle 6y ago
  Emotional support animals are not legally service animals and there is no grant of access to places of public accommodation, etc.
- adoxyz 6y ago
  Emotional support animal =/= service dog. Service dogs are specially trained for a job and cost upwards of $25-30k to train and maintain their training. Emotional support animals don't require any training and don't have nearly as many rights as a proper service dog.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    Note that someone disabled can train the service dog themselves, though-- there's no certification, requirement of specific breed, etc.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Yes but you also don't have to prove that your dog is the latter, so...
    - adoxyz 6y ago
      Many states have started implementing laws against falsely claiming service dogs. https://www.animallaw.info/content/fraudulent-service-dogs https://www.animallaw.info/content/fraudulent-service-dogs
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        I don't see how an unenforceable law would help deter people who want to claim a non service animal as a service animal. As mlyle notes above, there is no formalized certification or training process required by ADA, so anyone can claim they have PTSD and they trained their dog to be a service animal to help them with their PTSD. What is anyone going to be able to do about that?
- xahrepap 6y ago
  My understanding isn't that they're not actually "registering" anything. But rather just putting a piece of cloth they bought on amazon on their animal they and claiming it to be so. They're abusing a part of the law most people don't understand (and most companies don't want to add to the drama of even if they do). IANAL, but it was explained to me that you cannot ask basically anything about service animals, other than one thing: "What is your service animal trained to do?". Apparently, service animals are supposed to be trained to do one specific task for their owner. Otherwise, they're not actually service animals. Allowing that question allows companies to verify that the animal is actually a service animal... without offending the people who require the animal. I was talking to a friend of mine who works for a museum of sorts. These not-service animals are causing problems for them. But they are strictly forbidden to say or do anything about any pet being claimed to be a service animal. I suspect it's because they either (a) don't understand the law, and so they're trying to avoid being liable to anything, and/or (b) they don't care enough and just want to avoid the drama the fraudsters will cause. I've read comments from people with actual service animals saying they wish companies (airports, etc) would crack down on it though. Because these untrained animals are making their own very expensive animals look bad. AND the untrained animals will yip and snap and pester the real service animals.
mlyle 6y ago
Note that Uber wasn't fined. They were ordered to pay her attorney costs (which are high in part because Uber complicated the litigation) and damages to her.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
igneo676 6y ago
In practice, I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about service dog misrepresentation. When I was trained in restaurants to deal with (potential) service dogs, the extent to which I was allowed to ask any questions was "Is that a service dog?". As long as the answer was "Yes", I was to leave them alone. No questions asked. Anything else supposedly opened you to litigation Edit: Looks like there's a separate thread with additional ADA info. Tl;dr - nothing you can do to stop people misrepresenting their dogs as service animals.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

sneak 6y ago

This pales in comparison to some of the stories I've heard from women regarding the sexually aggressive and harassing behavior they've experienced from (always male) Uber drivers, often on the way home late at night (where the driver gets to see their home address). This isn't apparently a firing offense at Uber.

airstrike 6y ago
Perhaps, but that's entirely off-topic
- sneak 6y ago
  Is it? I think it falls squarely on the topic of "Uber drivers breaking the law and Uber choosing to not deal with it (to the detriment of riders) 'because contractors'", that is, just what TFA is about.
  - fastball 6y ago
    I don't really understand how that is Uber's responsibility though. If a crime is committed, that crime should be reported and the police should investigate and take action based on the result of said investigation. Probably reasonable to suspend people pending the outcome of the investigation, but not sure unilateral action is warranted on the part of the company. We have processes for a reason.
mrweasel 6y ago
The fact that others have worse problems does not negate the illegal treatment of a blind woman. There is a terrible tendency to brush of problems by pointing other issues.
- sneak 6y ago
  Oh, I don't mean to negate, but to amplify. There is definitely a huge problem with Uber not doing enough to ensure their drivers aren't breaking the law.

rectang 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 example of how rideshare companies attempt to offload risk and liability onto individual drivers who are generally unprepared and unaware that this is happening. Insurance is a more important example (most rideshare drivers are not properly insured), but this legal play illustrates strategic consistency by Uber.

valuearb 6y ago
Are you saying that the drivers didn't know what they were doing to this woman was wrong? Or are you claiming Uber told the drivers to mistreat her?
- scsilver 6y ago
  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 legal argument why they arent responsible, but that doesnt mean they are socially responsible to its users, shareholders and other stakeholders. Even then, the courts have made their order, so it looks like their arguments were legally insufficient. Its hard for me to defend a system that blatently hurts the disabled then tries to argue a loophole around the ADA. They even have a link declaring how much they care about providing accessibility https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility . All this lip service and they wont take responsibility for a blind woman being stranded multiple times, because she was stranded by their "contractor".
  - valuearb 6y ago
    What externalities?
    - 6y ago

belinder 6y ago

Does an uber driver know when they accept a ride that the rider has a dog with them?

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
It shouldn't matter. As they say in the article, "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." If the driver isn't willing to comply with the regulations, then they shouldn't broadcast their services on Uber.
- pygy_ 6y ago
  You are getting downvoted for mysterious reasons, you are of course correct, and this is why the plaintif was awarded $1.1m...
- wccrawford 6y ago
  Uber is required to provide service to that person. An individual driver is not required to. If that particular driver can't, Uber still has to provide that service for the passenger.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    This doesn't make sense to me. If a driver isn't capable or willing to be ADA compliant, then why are they driving other people? They shouldn't be.
    - wccrawford 6y ago
      That's saying that people with disabilities shouldn't ever do jobs unless they can do 100% of the job. Instead, the ADA says that companies must make reasonable accomodations for the employee. In this case, it means drivers with allergies don't have to take animals in their cars. For someone with a back injury, it might mean they can stock shelves so long as items are kept under a certain weight. There are plenty of instances of people with disabilities not having to do the full job, because they can do most of the job.

1023bytes 6y ago

She didn't get $1.1m, the settlement was $324,000 in damages plus legal expenses of $805,313. That kind of changes the narrative in my opinion.

throwaway4good 6y ago
Lawyers gotta eat so they can chase them ambulances ...
- paulgb 6y ago
  It seems like a lot, but if they are only paid when they win, the price has to take into account the risk they are taking by going up against a company like Uber that has a huge vested interest in not losing cases like this. If their chance of success going in is 25%, expenses are $100k, 2-3 lawyers contributed etc. it doesn’t seem like such a case of highway robbery (no idea if these numbers are realistic)
  - elil17 6y ago
    Their chances of success going in are much, much higher. Law firms won’t take a case unless they think they can get something out of it, like a cash settlement. This particular case was very very strong. $100k expenses are realistic, but only because many law firms choose to have extravagant offices and ridiculous corporate retreats. The firm is billing $500/hour - that may be the going rate, but it doesn’t change the fact that lawyers get rich while the people they’re supposed to represent aren’t fairly compensated for the harm that is done to them. The $1.1m was supposed to represent the damage that the canceled Uber rides did to her career, and now that’s damage that will never fully be made up to her.
notimetorelax 6y ago
Maybe, but I’m glad lawyers took her case, helped her win, and then got paid for it. Ruling itself may extend to future rides and help the blind community.
marshmallow_12 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bgorman 6y ago

I think anyone who has taken Uber and Lyft a lot knows that they allow drivers to abuse the system for their benefit, with no recourse for riders. A few incidents that have bothered me: 1. Having an Uber refuse to take me to the airport from downtown Chicago 2. Lyft not giving me an automatic refund for a pickup in SOMA when the driver had been heading down 101 for 10 minutes and was showing no signs of turning around. 3. Every Uber driver cancelling rides at LAX to force surge pricing. I'm not suprised that Uber drivers do not want to deal with riders with disabilities. Since Uber and Lyft are not profitable they can't even afford to kick any drivers off the platform other than drivers that pose a risk of physical danger to passengers. Until Uber and Lyft implement a system that actually can result in negative consequences for unethical drivers, I have no sympathy for any losses these companies incur.

fastball 6y ago
So the bad behavior is on the part of the drivers, not the company, but you prefer the company to get punished?
- shuntress 6y ago
  The drivers represent the company and all interactions with the driver are setup through the company. So, yes. ie: If a driver snatches my backpack and drives away, I expect Uber to replace/return what was stolen from me by their contractor. Not for them to just tell me to take a hike and deal with it myself.
  - fastball 6y ago
    So there is absolutely nothing a company can do to absolve themselves of the poor behavior of employees? By that system, Uber would still be at fault if they explicitly told all drivers "you are not allowed to deny service to someone with a service dog under any circumstances", and a driver did anyway.
    - airstrike 6y ago

snurfer 6y ago

Most of the money went to the attorneys. "Irving took legal action against Uber, resulting in an arbitrator this month awarding her $324,000 in damages plus legal expenses of $805,313" https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-drivers-refused-rides-to-this-blind-woman-16068416.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-drivers-re...

jagger27 6y ago
Can you successfully fight Uber’s über legal team for under a million? Seems cheap to me.
- kumarvvr 6y ago
  Can a judicial system be sane enough that big organizations cannot leverage deep pockets to delay justice?
- snurfer 6y ago
  I guess it depends on how you define "successfully".

jagger27 6y ago

“One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination.” That’s particularly awful and cruel. It must be extremely disorienting and stressful for a blind person to be put in that situation.

EugeneOZ 6y ago
Yeah, after reading this I can't forget it. Not sure what kind of animal one needs to be to do this.
- elil17 6y ago
  Well perhaps it is because Uber pays their drivers poverty wages. I can imagine a driver taking advantage of a passenger because they need food or shelter for themselves or their family. Obviously it’s cruel to do this to a blind passenger, but I think the fundamental moral problem is really with the decision makers at Uber not with the driver.
  - ecf 6y ago
    If you remove all forms of monetary persuasion and simply look at this from the perspective of a human being, the driver is a monster.
    - elil17 6y ago
      But the monetary aspect exists, there’s no way to ignore how little Uber drivers are paid. Full time drivers earn about $30k/year without any benefits in San Francisco. That’s less than half of the poverty line for an individual and less than a third for a family of four. A person earning that little money in SF is likely to be in a really really desperate financial situation - possibly homeless. Yes, doing that to someone is wrong. It’s absolutely wrong. But I just can’t ignore the people who put the driver in that situation and the culpability they have here.
      - 6y ago

ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago

> "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 to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic.

shuntress 6y ago
This is equivalent to a landlord saying "Sorry, it's to expensive to build wheel chair ramps. So we didn't build any" According to Uber, you need to call up another driver and get them to come take over for you because Uber will not.
- ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
  If you're building a new building you should be required to have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't really a thing, so it's okay to require them. If you have an old building it's on the government to provide the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain buildings to standards at the same time.
  - shuntress 6y ago
    I don't think there was anyone signed up as a driver with Uber before the ADA existed but for the sake of argument, we can assume those people exist. Yes, I agree that they should receive government-funded training that teaches them to tolerate a service dog in their car. Every who signs up to be an Uber driver after the signing of the ADA must be capable of transporting service dogs.
    - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
      That kind of policy means that people with PTSD from dogs who are desperate for a job will sign up and WILL experience PTSD and WILL endanger riders. It's a shitty policy IMO.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kumarvvr 6y ago

Well, as always, lawyers take the juicy bits, leaving the actual victim with peanuts. Justice, is increasingly costly.

fastball 6y ago
If $324,000 is peanuts then I think my nut allergy just went away.
teachrdan 6y ago
I wouldn't say that $324,000 is "peanuts." Especially considering that, in most cases, that money is not taxed because it is compensation, not earnings. The amount the plaintiff won in this case is equal to 8 or 9 years of (pre-tax!) mean or median income for a blind person in the US: https://nfb.org//images/nfb/publications/jbir/jbir15/jbir050202.html https://nfb.org//images/nfb/publications/jbir/jbir15/jbir050...
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  ~30% of a settlement is peanuts though. Also, do people have to pay taxes on these earnings? There goes ~30% of that if so.

jedberg 6y ago

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 while I strap in the carseat. I'm really good at it, but it still takes an extra minute or so to strap in the seat and then strap the child into the seat. The apps need a way for me to say "I have a carseat" or "I have a service animal" and then give a bonus to the driver for picking me up. Incentivize the driver to want to come get me, and compensate them for the extra time. I'd gladly pay and extra "carseat fee" so that I don't get an unhappy driver who gives me one star just because they had to wait for me. And in the case of the service animal, they shouldn't have the option to reject the ride and the rider should not get charged extra, but Uber/Lyft should have to compensate the driver for taking that ride as a cost the rideshare companies bear under the ADA.

paulcole 6y ago
> The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in their app No. The real problem is that a person with a disability was denied service in violation of the ADA. There's no setting in the app that prevents a driver from saying (as they should), "Get in."
- spuz 6y ago
  Exactly. As the article says: > In 2014, The National Federation of the Blind in the US sued the ride-sharing app over guide-dog regulations. > The case was settled in 2017 when Uber agreed to ensure its drivers knew they were legally obliged to provide service to people with guide dogs. So Uber have clearly failed to train their drivers to treat disabled passengers in the right way. There are definitely lots of problems that could be solved with a better UI but this isn't one of them.
sorokod 6y ago
The way you phrase it makes it sound like a UI issue. It is probably more accurate to say that Uber chooses to not provide this sort of functionality.

throwaway4good 6y ago

A blind woman who was refused rides on 14 occasions - did this happen only to her? Or is it a broaded problem ... I cannot imagine she would be the only blind person taking an uber ...

EugeneOZ 6y ago
Maybe not everyone is brave enough to sue giants? Look at the lawyers share size.
shariqm 6y ago
Yeah, this isn't the first time: https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-of-california-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/#settlement https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-o...

ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago

Yeah, but most of that goes to...anyone? Bueller? THE LAWYERS! > She was awarded $324,000 in damages and more than $800,000 in attorney fees and court costs, according to the arbitrator's award posted online by her attorneys. That's from the CNN variant of the story. To be fair, they likely earned it, in this case. It seems to have taken a while. https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/business/uber-blind-passenger-arbitration-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/business/uber-blind-passenger...

akiselev 6y ago
The awards were separate, one for damages and another for services rendered by her legal team. She could have won the damages and received nothing for the rest, in which case she would be net negative 500k or so. It doesn't look like an ambulance chaser case where the she agreed to give the lawyers 2/3 of the damages. Does go to show you how crazy expensive real litigation is. From the document her team posted: > She is awarded the relief requested in her Post-Hearing Brief, including her damages in the amount of $324,000 plus attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs in the amount of $805,313.45 which, though high, reflects the high quality of legal work done in this case.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
  Agreed. She ended up making money. And Uber needs to give a bit more training to their drivers about ADA. 1.1M is under-the-couch-cushions for Uber, but the publicity cost them a lot more.

maxharris 6y ago

I'd like to go out on a limb and say that I don't agree with the ADA. I don't think any private person or organization should be compelled to provide facilities or services for anyone else, regardless of what their need is. I have no animus toward people with disabilities - I'm just saying that no one should be forced to help anyone else. If you want to do something for someone else's benefit, you should be free to do so, at your own expense. When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act. No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen. When you help a friend, you are involved in his life. Because you're there, you get the reward of achieving a personal value of your own. You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life, which helps you be a better friend. When you try to coerce a group, you have no knowledge of the actual impact your rule actually has on anyone. And because you're not in the loop, it takes a great deal longer to change your rules. This ends up hurting more people than you help. EDIT: downvoting me won't change my mind, but it will make me try even harder to spread the above message

Karunamon 6y ago
On pure principle I kind of agree, but the reason that the ADA exists is because people with disabilities that require things like ramps and big bathroom stalls with grab bars are not a significant enough market segment to pressure businesses to offer them; the end result of which is that accommodations would not exist otherwise. This is the necessary kind of regulation that shores up a hole that free markets wouldn't solve on their own. Accommodating disabilities isn't profitable.
neom 6y ago
How would you think about the best way to provide services to members of our society that are less able than others?
orf 6y ago
> When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act > No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen. > You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life, which helps you be a better friend. > This ends up hurting more people than you help. What an absolutely mind numblingly self centered and brain-dead take. It's got nothing to do with the "noble act" or other such nonsense. They are there so that people with disabilities don't end up living a second class existence, locked out of large parts of modern life, because it is not economically sensible to add disabled access to your building or service for the very small percentage of potential customers who need it.

BoiledCabbage 6y ago

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 to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic. You should take that into consideration before taking on a job that might require you to drive around dogs. As a country we decided long time ago, that people who require seeing-eye dogs shouldn't be subjected to substandard treatment by society - as was the case before the law protected the visually impaired. If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs.

lupire 6y ago
The ADA applies to workers too. A dog allergy is a disability.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  It has been ruled that fear of dogs or allergies to dogs is not sufficient reason to deny service to someone with a service dog. https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
  - anonymousab 6y ago
    I think a deathly allergy would qualify as a 'legitimate safety requirement'. There are also situations in which the ADA considers an allergy itself to be a disability, though the given examples are usually around food allergies.
    - Miner49er 6y ago
      I don't see that language anywhere except for the case of miniature horses?

lacker 6y ago

I'm surprised that the law requires you to allow dogs in your car. It's one thing for a public space, but for a private service it seems like it should be okay to have a no-dogs-allowed rule.

kbar13 6y ago
your choice here is that you dont have to drive for rideshare, knowing that you don't want dogs in the car. because the ability to choose goes both ways. and because the industry is unregulated, the company isn't required to do anything like add a flag for a driver to avoid having to pick up dogs
Pfhreak 6y ago
You can have a no dogs rule. You just can't have a "No service dogs" rule. Service dogs are essential to the welfare of their humans, denying them would be like having a "no glasses" or "no canes" or "no pacemakers" rule disallowing folks who need assistance. Yes, there are limits, especially if the area is dangerous or the dog is disruptive, but generally that dog should be considered to be a tool the human is using.
URSpider94 6y ago
Service dogs aren't dogs, they are medical devices. A car used in ride share isn't a private space any longer, it's quasi-public. The law (at least in the USA) is very clear, you can not restrict access of medical devices (whether service dogs or wheelchairs) in businesses.

shariqm 6y ago

Uber settled a case similar to this in 2016 [1,2] and agreed to "Require that drivers provide equal service to people with disabilities who travel with service animals." Seems like they haven't learned their lesson, and this minor new $1.1M fee is unlikely to change their behaviour. OTOH, from a Teacher of the Visually Impaired (TVI) I know: - "It’s challenging. I think they need to make it really clear this is part of their job. It’s common for people not to allow dogs in their car, just in general. On top of that, they employ a lot of people who don’t speak english and people from several cultures who would never have a dog in the car." [1] https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-of-california-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/#settlement https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-o... [2] https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf

Miner49er 6y ago

Unless Uber fixes this, it seems like a way to get some money if you have a disability. 1) Train or buy a service dog for your disability. 2) Request an Uber with your service dog, record what happens when the driver shows up. Assuming Uber doesn't fix this, many drivers will probably deny service. 3) Repeat a couple dozen times. 4) Contact a lawyer 5) Profit?

Ansil849 6y ago
This is an extremely callous comment. Discrimination happens regularly to those with disabilities without needing to go out of their way to concoct such a scenario - it happens organically every day, due to people like that Uber driver mentioned ("One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination.") being trash.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  Depends on the disability, I think. I have a disability per the ADA, and have considered getting a service dog. But me not being able to take my service dog would be nothing but an inconvenience, whereas for someone blind it is obviously much worse then that. I don't see how I'm being callous, I think people doing this would force Uber to implement a fix, which is good for people with disabilities. Uber needs to be punished for this until it is fixed.

knz_ 6y ago

There's no reason for disabled people to be taking Ubers. Drivers are not trained nor willing to handle disabled passengers in many cases. They often have smaller vehicles for economy/poverty reasons that not equipped to carry wheelchairs and the like. Service animals are similarly not wanted, because the driver needs to be made whole if they have an 'accident' in the vehicle. The uber cleaning fee does not even come close to the amount of lost time and money that comes when these things happen. Medicare/medicaid should be covering these people's cost of transportation, the cost should not be forced onto random kids driving uber for side money who are wholly untrained in how to deal with a disabled persons needs.

florin_g 6y ago

As a homebuilder, 100% of labor is done by subcontractors. For me to blame subs for any issue is beyond comprehension. What makes Uber different?

kart23 6y ago

>The ADA makes it unlawful to require proof of a disability or identification for a service dog. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there are no requirements for licensing, certification or identification of service dogs. Also, service animals are not required to wear special collars, vests or harnesses. I never really knew about this. Technically you could just bring your dog into any business and claim its a service animal when asked. If the dog is being unruly businesses can exclude you, but it would be an ADA violation to refuse entry. Quite interesting.

m-ee 6y ago
They are allowed to ask if the dog is trained to perform a specific task which would differentiate a guide dog or medical alert dog that can’t be refused entry from an emotional support animal that can.
- kart23 6y ago
  They're not allowed to ask you/the dog to demonstrate though. Someone could just say yes or make something up. It's lying, but the business can't really do anything about it. > Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task. https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
  - m-ee 6y ago
    Sure people could always lie. In practice I’ve seen people say it’s an emotional support animal or produce their doctors note for it, which somewhat ironically confirms it’s not actually a service dog.
    - kart23 6y ago
      yeah, that's exactly what I'd expect from those types of people.

TheMagicHorsey 6y ago

This is easily solved by giving drivers bonuses for taking passengers that require more onboarding and offboarding time. When you don't see such simple, market-based solutions, you can be sure there's a regulatory reason for it. And sure enough, in this case Lyft and Uber can't do the common sense thing and evaluate a passenger's time to onboard and offboard and raise the price accordingly, because of the ADA.

chrisBob 6y ago

I am amazed that Uber still exists. Of course a blind woman was refused rides. Their goal is to be a taxi service minus that ignores the regulations that were added to taxi services for a reason. As a large healthy white male I know I could probably use Uber safely, but I refuse to support a business that makes rides much worse and more dangerous for those that are more vulnerable. Taxis seem bad enough with the oversight in place.

xmprt 6y ago
While I agree that Uber could have done more here, I'm not sure why you think taxis would be better. If 14 individual yellow cab taxis refused to pick up a passenger, it wouldn't be a story. Apps can also track your location for safety, allow you to report drivers, and help you get picked up from anywhere (instead of having to risk going to a busy street where taxis might roam). The way I see it, Uber is super helpful for people with disabilities.

jariel 6y ago

"One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination." What is wrong with people? I can understand something like this maybe happening once? But that this happened 14 times makes me lose faith in people. Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops.

teddyh 6y ago
> Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops. Empathy is built on the premise of relative economic equality.
- jariel 6y ago
  Basic civility existed for thousands of years before abstract notions of 'economic equality'. That's an ideological idea that's nuance and I'm not sure most people even buy into as it's stated. My grandparents were born on farms without plumbing or running water, so was everyone in the area. They had incredible dignity, civility, kindness (although a kind of emotionally distant version of it). Yes, there would have been some ideals of 'equal before the law' or 'before God', and some notion of fairness about individuals amassing fortunes on the backs of others, surely, but not an ideological ideal of 'economic equality' and certainly not 'equity' as it's used today. Not dropping blind people of 'just anywhere' is something people 3000 years ago would have understood quite well to be wrong.
asdff 6y ago
>Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops. Case in point, how many people have been griping about wearing a cloth mask, like some toddler who refuses to put on pants.

cwhiz 6y ago

Ah a mere 0.006% of their 2020 revenue. I am sure that Uber has learned their lesson.

Simulacra 6y ago

This also occurs with taxi cabs as a Google search shows. This is absolutely something Lyft/Uber should be taking into account in their apps, but I think it could go even further. Female passengers can prefer a female driver; yes male can prefer male. Notify the driver ahead of time I have a dog, I have a child, I'm blind, I'm sweating like a beast please For the love of God turn on the a/c, etc. I'm surprised but also not, and saddened that in 2021 this is still an issue.

lebuffon 6y ago

The elephant in the room is that some cultures consider dogs unclean. What to do when you as the driver, are a member of that culture and the rider wants to bring a dog into your taxi. I suspect a royal chaos ensues...

duxup 6y ago
I would argue that a combo of the ADA and the nature of providing transit services would ... pretty much mean that working in transit is a choice that has a high likelihood of interacting with dogs... and that's on that person for making that choice. And most religions while they have restrictions about X, Y, Z are also generally forgiving of happenstance, accidental religious rules violations, and just the necessities of living with others people.

duxup 6y ago

I recall a couple cities where folks proposed Uber / Lyft as a sort of public transit option or just filling the gap of public transit and etc. Can't really do that if they simply won't / argue they don't have to serve some members of the public ...

intrasight 6y ago
That a bit different a situation. The municipality would have a contract with a private company to provide public transportation services. Like with any such contracts, the recipient would have to abide by all specified regulations and also would have to hit performance milestones in order to get paid and/or renewed.
- duxup 6y ago
  That doesn't jive with Ubers legal argument. >it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees That's not likely to change contract or not...

shuntress 6y ago

Uber is just going to add (in the driver signup forms) a checkbox labeled "I agree to comply fully with all ADA requirements" and link to a big confusing document that no driver will ever read then whenever a driver is sued for failure to comply with ADA regulations Uber will hang them out to dry because they are a "contractor" not an "employee"