4 ms·

> What if they're allergic, or deathly afraid of dogs? If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown people for a living, just like someone who's deat

> What if they're allergic, or deathly afraid of dogs? If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown people for a living, just like someone who's deathly afraid of blood probably won't be a surgeon. Allergy could be handled by Uber, who should be provided by the driver with a medical certification of the allergy and shouldn't even show that car to the blind customer (if the ADA allows that). I think the driver shouldn't be able to see that the customer has a service dog, but I agree that they should get a compensation from Uber for doing that ride.

Miner49er 6y ago
> Allergy could be handled by Uber, who should be provided by the driver with a medical certification of the allergy and shouldn't even show that car to the blind customer. IANAL, but I don't think it is that simple. Small towns sometimes only have one driver at a time. If there's one driver, they _have_ to take a service animal, by law. Allergy or fear of dogs is not good enough. Admittedly the liability for the driver denying anyway wouldn't be on the driver, it would be on Uber, but I doubt they want to be paying $1 million every time this happens.
- fuzzer37 6y ago
  > Allergy or fear of dogs is not good enough. I'm interested in this part. This seems to be counterintuitive. Is a waiter with a really bad peanut allergy required to serve a guest a dish with peanuts in it? Why does the clients (legitimate) health concerns override the drivers (also legitimate) health issues?
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    Well, I think the ADA only applies to businesses with more then 15 employees. The idea is that if you have a business that large, even if one person has a problem with dogs, not all 15 (or more) will, so you should be able to accommodate and provide service. So in your example, the business should have a different waiter/waitress provide service.
    - fuzzer37 6y ago
      Ah, I see. That seems reasonable, honestly. So in that case, Uber should be able to just assign another driver. But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. However, I don't think Uber should be forced to provide service just because they technically can. If there are no drivers at all in your area, they'll tell you that (Or charge an exorbitant fee for someone to drive in) and you won't be able to take an Uber. It's not a requirement that they give you a ride no matter what.
      - Miner49er 6y ago
        > But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. Yeah in this case, a driver may have to take a service dog even if they have fear or an allergy, or Uber could be sued again. IANAL, but this is my understanding.
        nitrogen 6y ago
        This type of compelled behavior seems like an oversized club to wield for the problem at hand. No individual should be forced to do something that will be harmful to them just because another individual belongs to a particular group.
        Miner49er 6y ago
        No individual is being forced. Uber is being forced. Uber's the one that's gonna have to pay another $1 million in damages or whatever if they don't.
        nitrogen 6y ago
        Fair enough. A lot of comments are talking about forcing drivers, even with allergies or phobias, to take any fare requested by a disabled person. It's definitely up to Uber to figure out how to comply and how to incentivize. Forced labor of individuals definitely isn't the way to do it, and is antithetical to modern principles of government.
  - ashtonbaker 6y ago
    > Is a waiter with a really bad peanut allergy required to serve a guest a dish with peanuts in it? I'm having a hard time constructing a scenario in which the only way to accommodate a guest with a disability to the same level as other guests is for a waiter with a peanut allergy to serve a dish with peanuts in it. In this hypothetical restaurant, presumably the waiter cannot serve this dish to /any/ guests. And the ADA doesn't entitle you to have a restaurant make food to your specifications, as far as I know.
  - CJefferson 6y ago
    Restaurants don't have to serve peanuts at all. They have to allow guide dogs.
ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
> If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown people for a living Not everyone has a hundred companies trying to hire them. They have to take any job they can get to pay their food and electricity and mortgage and health insurance and child support and all that bullshit. And some of those people have PTSD from dogs.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Even if there are no jobs in your area other than dog groomers and you desperately need a job, if you have PTSD from dogs, you can't be a dog groomer. If you create two classes of driver, one who has to follow the ADA and one who doesn't, you've just repealed the ADA.
  - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
    No you haven't. ADA should be supporting people who have fears of animals as well, IMO. It's about supporting everyone, not just one class of disability. For that matter, a driver with a severe back problem shouldn't be forced to help a disabled customer with lifting their luggage into the trunk. A different driver should be found. ADA should support both individuals in being safe.
    - hluska 6y ago
      I feel like you misunderstand the ADA. The ADA does protect those people - they just need to ask for reasonable accommodations and be prepared to back up that request with documentation. Please note that this suit is not about a person with PTSD being forced to drive a guide dog. It’s about a person who has a guide dog continuously being denied reasonable accommodations.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Miner49er 6y ago

> Allergy could be handled by Uber, who should be provided by the driver with a medical certification of the allergy and shouldn't even show that car to the blind customer. IANAL, but I don't think it is that simple. Small towns sometimes only have one driver at a time. If there's one driver, they _have_ to take a service animal, by law. Allergy or fear of dogs is not good enough. Admittedly the liability for the driver denying anyway wouldn't be on the driver, it would be on Uber, but I doubt they want to be paying $1 million every time this happens.

fuzzer37 6y ago
> Allergy or fear of dogs is not good enough. I'm interested in this part. This seems to be counterintuitive. Is a waiter with a really bad peanut allergy required to serve a guest a dish with peanuts in it? Why does the clients (legitimate) health concerns override the drivers (also legitimate) health issues?
- Miner49er 6y ago
  Well, I think the ADA only applies to businesses with more then 15 employees. The idea is that if you have a business that large, even if one person has a problem with dogs, not all 15 (or more) will, so you should be able to accommodate and provide service. So in your example, the business should have a different waiter/waitress provide service.
  - fuzzer37 6y ago
    Ah, I see. That seems reasonable, honestly. So in that case, Uber should be able to just assign another driver. But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. However, I don't think Uber should be forced to provide service just because they technically can. If there are no drivers at all in your area, they'll tell you that (Or charge an exorbitant fee for someone to drive in) and you won't be able to take an Uber. It's not a requirement that they give you a ride no matter what.
    - Miner49er 6y ago
      > But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. Yeah in this case, a driver may have to take a service dog even if they have fear or an allergy, or Uber could be sued again. IANAL, but this is my understanding.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        This type of compelled behavior seems like an oversized club to wield for the problem at hand. No individual should be forced to do something that will be harmful to them just because another individual belongs to a particular group.
        Miner49er 6y ago
        No individual is being forced. Uber is being forced. Uber's the one that's gonna have to pay another $1 million in damages or whatever if they don't.
        nitrogen 6y ago
        Fair enough. A lot of comments are talking about forcing drivers, even with allergies or phobias, to take any fare requested by a disabled person. It's definitely up to Uber to figure out how to comply and how to incentivize. Forced labor of individuals definitely isn't the way to do it, and is antithetical to modern principles of government.
- ashtonbaker 6y ago
  > Is a waiter with a really bad peanut allergy required to serve a guest a dish with peanuts in it? I'm having a hard time constructing a scenario in which the only way to accommodate a guest with a disability to the same level as other guests is for a waiter with a peanut allergy to serve a dish with peanuts in it. In this hypothetical restaurant, presumably the waiter cannot serve this dish to /any/ guests. And the ADA doesn't entitle you to have a restaurant make food to your specifications, as far as I know.
- CJefferson 6y ago
  Restaurants don't have to serve peanuts at all. They have to allow guide dogs.

ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago

> If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown people for a living Not everyone has a hundred companies trying to hire them. They have to take any job they can get to pay their food and electricity and mortgage and health insurance and child support and all that bullshit. And some of those people have PTSD from dogs.

pessimizer 6y ago
Even if there are no jobs in your area other than dog groomers and you desperately need a job, if you have PTSD from dogs, you can't be a dog groomer. If you create two classes of driver, one who has to follow the ADA and one who doesn't, you've just repealed the ADA.
- ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
  No you haven't. ADA should be supporting people who have fears of animals as well, IMO. It's about supporting everyone, not just one class of disability. For that matter, a driver with a severe back problem shouldn't be forced to help a disabled customer with lifting their luggage into the trunk. A different driver should be found. ADA should support both individuals in being safe.
  - hluska 6y ago
    I feel like you misunderstand the ADA. The ADA does protect those people - they just need to ask for reasonable accommodations and be prepared to back up that request with documentation. Please note that this suit is not about a person with PTSD being forced to drive a guide dog. It’s about a person who has a guide dog continuously being denied reasonable accommodations.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]