8 ms·

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 Am

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?
    - pvarangot 6y ago
      I don't think a deadly allergy to dogs exists as a condition on its own, you would probably also have a whole lot of terrible respiratory issues when exposed to a lot of other allergens. Someone with a deadly allergy to dogs will probably already require accommodations on the job that shield them from close interaction with people on its entirety.
    - Ensorceled 6y ago
      Such a person would not be able to drive a taxi/uber regardless of accommodations. I used to have a severe cat allergy that resulted in an asthma attack when exposed to, for instance, a colleague covered in cat hair. Their cat was in another city at the time.
- shagie 6y ago
  https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility. If the person has a dog allergy, Uber should make the appropriate accommodations (possibly by allowing them to assign another driver to the fare) - however, they cannot refuse the fare.
  - lolinder 6y ago
    This. It would be absurdly easy for Uber to allow riders to specify "I have a service animal" and drivers to specify "I have a dog allergy" (probably with a requirement to provide a doctor's note to avoid abuse). You simply don't pair those riders with those drivers.
    - shagie 6y ago
      The ADA doesn't require passengers to state that they have a service animal. Additionally, having that would likely open up Uber to additional liability for discrimination cases of people turning down rides (or marking that they have a dog allergy when they don't) and causing the rate or availability to be different for someone who has a situation that is covered by the ADA.
      - lolinder 6y ago
        The availability difference is a concern. I wasn't picturing the drivers being made aware of the service animal ahead of time, which would eliminate discrimination concerns, assuming you could actually enforce that you have to have a real allergy.
- Kharvok 6y ago
  This is specifically addressed in updated guidance from 2010. "Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility."
  - magsnus 6y ago
    How on earth does this apply to cars?
    - orthecreedence 6y ago
      Put up a divider. Or update the app's UX: "[ ] I'm blind and have a service dog."
      - cortesoft 6y ago
        "A customer is not required to indicate that he or she will be traveling with a service animal when calling to request a ride." https://www.thetransportationalliance.org/news/adanotice.pdf https://www.thetransportationalliance.org/news/adanotice.pdf
      - magsnus 6y ago
        Considering how little Uber drivers makes per drive (and they are independent contractors and not workers in most places) a simple divider would probably come close to the "unreasonable cost" in the ADA. It is not that I don't empathize with disabled people but ADA as it seems to be written and all the "support animals" these days would probably drive many small business to bankrupcy. In Sweden "our ADA" only applies to lead-dogs and they have a special "blanket" and most people that want to bring their dogs into restaurants and hotels don't have licensed dogs. But still, if all the "dog rooms" are taken then the deep cleaning required is a pretty big cost to bear and I have seen customers turn in the door when there was a dog in the restaurant. So it is not a simple issue and I sympathize with the small independent contractors. Uber, not so much.
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  How does this change anything? If someone has a problem with dogs, or anything else, then they are not qualified to perform a job that requires interacting with dogs, or whatever their particular disability involves. They aren't being denied a right to work out of discrimination or prejudice. They simply can't do that job. Here's the difference between that and prejudicial discrimination: If someone does have either an allergy or tramatic stress issue with dogs, or whatever else, but for some reason they really want to do this particular job anyway, they still can. IF they want to deal with their problem theirself somehow, with allergy meds or meditation or plain iron will or whatever, as long as they can and do the job properly, no one will prevent them. Discrimination & prejudice is I don't care how good you might be at the job, you still aren't allowed to do it (or are significantly and artificially disadvantaged) simply because you're female or black etc. The drivers just don't like that the dogs mess up their cars and the smell displeases the next customer and affects their rating and tips. The answer to that is tough shit. Don't take a job serving the public if you only like some people and not others. This is the general store mysteriously always being out of flour or beans for the black family. Your freedom not to interact with people you don't like and who aren't violent or otherwise dangerous, comes only in the form that you are free not to operate or work for a business that serves the public. Go be a comic book artist or accountant or something where you don't have to let any filthy dogs into your house as part of your job.
  - core-questions 6y ago
    > Don't take a job serving the public if you only like some people and not others. Seems like this logic doesn't apply to payment processors, web hosts, and anyone else who doesn't want to deal with free speech that they find offensive. Bake the cake, right?
    - m11a 6y ago
      A lot of platforms have arbitrary requirements of who they'll serve or won't serve. Even those with fixed rules can enforce against anyone, and then just ignore your support tickets when you try to appeal. I guess the difference in this case is targeting someone due to a disability/protected characteristic, compared to some other reason. One fair thing might be Uber subsidising rides of disabled people with guide dogs (in the sense that it pays drivers a bit more to account for cleanup costs etc). I dunno if they can be expected to do this, but such costs probably won't show up on their bottom line and the PR of doing that alone would probably make up for any costs.
shotta 6y ago
Wouldn’t someone with a severe allergy to dogs also be covered under ADA?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Wouldn’t someone with a severe allergy to dogs also be covered under ADA? Sure, which clearly matters of Uber drivers are employees, but less so if they are independent service providers.
- teraflop 6y ago
  If a company has fewer than 15 employees, it's exempt from the ADA's requirements. If it has 15 employees or more, then the law assumes that it's reasonable for the company to provide service (e.g. by reassigning a non-allergic employee to work with a customer who has a service dog) except where it would demonstrably create an undue hardship.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Then it is not clear to me why a driver that uses the Uber app to find passengers, who is not an Uber employee, would not be allowed to refuse a service animal.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - unionpivo 6y ago
      > Then it is not clear to me why a driver that uses the Uber app to find passengers, who is not an Uber employee, would not be allowed to refuse a service animal. Uber did try what you said as a defense, and they lost, so it seem courts think that because Uber is a huge company, with much more than 15 people, it's on them to find a way to be compliant with ADA. Weather or not drivers are subcontractors or not doesn't even come to play. Because lets face it. If they didn't thats such a huge hole, that in a lot of cases corporations would be able to structure themselves in a way that they could avoid that.
m11a 6y ago
> I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic. I can only speak for myself, but I used to be scared of most dogs except guide dogs. Guide dogs always seemed to have a calming effect on me (for some reason).
xboxnolifes 6y ago
> If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs. Following the above, wouldn't this be any job that requires interacting with other people? So basically any job?
- bentcorner 6y ago
  Realistically seeing-eye dogs are not that common and plenty of jobs allow you to distance yourself from any potential dogs you might run into. There's not too many jobs where a dog might end up right behind you for extended periods of time in an enclosed space.
- jakeva 6y ago
  I can't speak for all jobs, but working as a software developer I have never been forced to interact with a dog
  - Groxx 6y ago
    If you ever go to an office, you're in the same boat. ADA support dogs are allowed in offices as well.
cortesoft 6y ago
> what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? Yeah, being traumatized doesn't let you break the law. Otherwise, people could say "I am traumatized by black people!" or "I am traumatized by gay people!"
- caddemon 6y ago
  I get enforcement is basically impossible on this/people throw around the word "traumatized" way too much - but I knew a girl who was attacked by a dog as a child and would have panic attacks if a large dog got anywhere near her. I'm not sure if you've ever seen a real panic attack but these are legitimate physical symptoms that can be very difficult to control, and would be extremely non-ideal to occur while driving. If you want to argue that this condition should mean she can't be an Uber driver I can see your point, but the comparison to race or sexual orientation is pretty absurd. I'm not aware of anyone who has panic attacks when seeing a human of another race or orientation.

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?
  - pvarangot 6y ago
    I don't think a deadly allergy to dogs exists as a condition on its own, you would probably also have a whole lot of terrible respiratory issues when exposed to a lot of other allergens. Someone with a deadly allergy to dogs will probably already require accommodations on the job that shield them from close interaction with people on its entirety.
  - Ensorceled 6y ago
    Such a person would not be able to drive a taxi/uber regardless of accommodations. I used to have a severe cat allergy that resulted in an asthma attack when exposed to, for instance, a colleague covered in cat hair. Their cat was in another city at the time.
shagie 6y ago
https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility. If the person has a dog allergy, Uber should make the appropriate accommodations (possibly by allowing them to assign another driver to the fare) - however, they cannot refuse the fare.
- lolinder 6y ago
  This. It would be absurdly easy for Uber to allow riders to specify "I have a service animal" and drivers to specify "I have a dog allergy" (probably with a requirement to provide a doctor's note to avoid abuse). You simply don't pair those riders with those drivers.
  - shagie 6y ago
    The ADA doesn't require passengers to state that they have a service animal. Additionally, having that would likely open up Uber to additional liability for discrimination cases of people turning down rides (or marking that they have a dog allergy when they don't) and causing the rate or availability to be different for someone who has a situation that is covered by the ADA.
    - lolinder 6y ago
      The availability difference is a concern. I wasn't picturing the drivers being made aware of the service animal ahead of time, which would eliminate discrimination concerns, assuming you could actually enforce that you have to have a real allergy.
Kharvok 6y ago
This is specifically addressed in updated guidance from 2010. "Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility."
- magsnus 6y ago
  How on earth does this apply to cars?
  - orthecreedence 6y ago
    Put up a divider. Or update the app's UX: "[ ] I'm blind and have a service dog."
    - cortesoft 6y ago
      "A customer is not required to indicate that he or she will be traveling with a service animal when calling to request a ride." https://www.thetransportationalliance.org/news/adanotice.pdf https://www.thetransportationalliance.org/news/adanotice.pdf
    - magsnus 6y ago
      Considering how little Uber drivers makes per drive (and they are independent contractors and not workers in most places) a simple divider would probably come close to the "unreasonable cost" in the ADA. It is not that I don't empathize with disabled people but ADA as it seems to be written and all the "support animals" these days would probably drive many small business to bankrupcy. In Sweden "our ADA" only applies to lead-dogs and they have a special "blanket" and most people that want to bring their dogs into restaurants and hotels don't have licensed dogs. But still, if all the "dog rooms" are taken then the deep cleaning required is a pretty big cost to bear and I have seen customers turn in the door when there was a dog in the restaurant. So it is not a simple issue and I sympathize with the small independent contractors. Uber, not so much.
Brian_K_White 6y ago
How does this change anything? If someone has a problem with dogs, or anything else, then they are not qualified to perform a job that requires interacting with dogs, or whatever their particular disability involves. They aren't being denied a right to work out of discrimination or prejudice. They simply can't do that job. Here's the difference between that and prejudicial discrimination: If someone does have either an allergy or tramatic stress issue with dogs, or whatever else, but for some reason they really want to do this particular job anyway, they still can. IF they want to deal with their problem theirself somehow, with allergy meds or meditation or plain iron will or whatever, as long as they can and do the job properly, no one will prevent them. Discrimination & prejudice is I don't care how good you might be at the job, you still aren't allowed to do it (or are significantly and artificially disadvantaged) simply because you're female or black etc. The drivers just don't like that the dogs mess up their cars and the smell displeases the next customer and affects their rating and tips. The answer to that is tough shit. Don't take a job serving the public if you only like some people and not others. This is the general store mysteriously always being out of flour or beans for the black family. Your freedom not to interact with people you don't like and who aren't violent or otherwise dangerous, comes only in the form that you are free not to operate or work for a business that serves the public. Go be a comic book artist or accountant or something where you don't have to let any filthy dogs into your house as part of your job.
- core-questions 6y ago
  > Don't take a job serving the public if you only like some people and not others. Seems like this logic doesn't apply to payment processors, web hosts, and anyone else who doesn't want to deal with free speech that they find offensive. Bake the cake, right?
  - m11a 6y ago
    A lot of platforms have arbitrary requirements of who they'll serve or won't serve. Even those with fixed rules can enforce against anyone, and then just ignore your support tickets when you try to appeal. I guess the difference in this case is targeting someone due to a disability/protected characteristic, compared to some other reason. One fair thing might be Uber subsidising rides of disabled people with guide dogs (in the sense that it pays drivers a bit more to account for cleanup costs etc). I dunno if they can be expected to do this, but such costs probably won't show up on their bottom line and the PR of doing that alone would probably make up for any costs.

shotta 6y ago

Wouldn’t someone with a severe allergy to dogs also be covered under ADA?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Wouldn’t someone with a severe allergy to dogs also be covered under ADA? Sure, which clearly matters of Uber drivers are employees, but less so if they are independent service providers.
teraflop 6y ago
If a company has fewer than 15 employees, it's exempt from the ADA's requirements. If it has 15 employees or more, then the law assumes that it's reasonable for the company to provide service (e.g. by reassigning a non-allergic employee to work with a customer who has a service dog) except where it would demonstrably create an undue hardship.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Then it is not clear to me why a driver that uses the Uber app to find passengers, who is not an Uber employee, would not be allowed to refuse a service animal.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - unionpivo 6y ago
    > Then it is not clear to me why a driver that uses the Uber app to find passengers, who is not an Uber employee, would not be allowed to refuse a service animal. Uber did try what you said as a defense, and they lost, so it seem courts think that because Uber is a huge company, with much more than 15 people, it's on them to find a way to be compliant with ADA. Weather or not drivers are subcontractors or not doesn't even come to play. Because lets face it. If they didn't thats such a huge hole, that in a lot of cases corporations would be able to structure themselves in a way that they could avoid that.

m11a 6y ago

> I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic. I can only speak for myself, but I used to be scared of most dogs except guide dogs. Guide dogs always seemed to have a calming effect on me (for some reason).

xboxnolifes 6y ago

> If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs. Following the above, wouldn't this be any job that requires interacting with other people? So basically any job?

bentcorner 6y ago
Realistically seeing-eye dogs are not that common and plenty of jobs allow you to distance yourself from any potential dogs you might run into. There's not too many jobs where a dog might end up right behind you for extended periods of time in an enclosed space.
jakeva 6y ago
I can't speak for all jobs, but working as a software developer I have never been forced to interact with a dog
- Groxx 6y ago
  If you ever go to an office, you're in the same boat. ADA support dogs are allowed in offices as well.

cortesoft 6y ago

> what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? Yeah, being traumatized doesn't let you break the law. Otherwise, people could say "I am traumatized by black people!" or "I am traumatized by gay people!"

caddemon 6y ago
I get enforcement is basically impossible on this/people throw around the word "traumatized" way too much - but I knew a girl who was attacked by a dog as a child and would have panic attacks if a large dog got anywhere near her. I'm not sure if you've ever seen a real panic attack but these are legitimate physical symptoms that can be very difficult to control, and would be extremely non-ideal to occur while driving. If you want to argue that this condition should mean she can't be an Uber driver I can see your point, but the comparison to race or sexual orientation is pretty absurd. I'm not aware of anyone who has panic attacks when seeing a human of another race or orientation.