3 ms·

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

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.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  I am seriously doubting an allergic driver would be forced to take a passenger with a dog. Their immediate right to life trumps the ADA. There's more interesting arguments to be made, like you can't ask the driver to provide proof of their allergies, and so on.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    Does there exist such a thing as a life threatening allergy to dogs? The rules are pretty clear that an allergy isn't a good enough reason to deny service, but it says that Uber should try and accommodate employees that don't want to be around dogs for whatever reason: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
    - R0b0t1 6y ago
      I'm not sure it matters if the allergy is life threatening or not. Again, you can't question the validity or scope of someone's disability under the ADA. You need to read the rules more carefully: they mean Uber, in as much as it is in control of the rideshare service, can't deny people on that basis. The individual drivers can and their employer must accommodate them under the ADA. If the drivers aren't employees and are self employed then as they are a business of less than 15 employees they can refuse anyone they want for any reason.
duskwuff 6y ago
> It's not a requirement that they give you a ride no matter what. But it is a requirement that they not discriminate against customers with disabilities. Charging an "exorbitant fee" for a driver who would tolerate a service animal would be a form of discrimination, even if that fee was the organic result of a pricing algorithm.
- spuz 6y ago
  There is no perfect solution to this problem, however, people in general - even those who enforce the law - tend to be flexible. The situation described in the article describes a person who was badly treated by Uber drivers and would probably have tolerated a service in which the drivers treated her like anyone else even if technically Uber did not tick every single box of the ADA. It might even be counter productive to force Uber to provide a non-discriminatory service to everybody everywhere. The law sets a high standard that we should all strive to meet but the courts tend to be full plaintiffs who have been wronged by companies failing to provide even the bare-minimum service. This appears to be the case here and we should probably focus on how to grasp the low hanging fruit before trying to come up with the "perfect" solution.

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.
R0b0t1 6y ago
I am seriously doubting an allergic driver would be forced to take a passenger with a dog. Their immediate right to life trumps the ADA. There's more interesting arguments to be made, like you can't ask the driver to provide proof of their allergies, and so on.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  Does there exist such a thing as a life threatening allergy to dogs? The rules are pretty clear that an allergy isn't a good enough reason to deny service, but it says that Uber should try and accommodate employees that don't want to be around dogs for whatever reason: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    I'm not sure it matters if the allergy is life threatening or not. Again, you can't question the validity or scope of someone's disability under the ADA. You need to read the rules more carefully: they mean Uber, in as much as it is in control of the rideshare service, can't deny people on that basis. The individual drivers can and their employer must accommodate them under the ADA. If the drivers aren't employees and are self employed then as they are a business of less than 15 employees they can refuse anyone they want for any reason.

duskwuff 6y ago

> It's not a requirement that they give you a ride no matter what. But it is a requirement that they not discriminate against customers with disabilities. Charging an "exorbitant fee" for a driver who would tolerate a service animal would be a form of discrimination, even if that fee was the organic result of a pricing algorithm.

spuz 6y ago
There is no perfect solution to this problem, however, people in general - even those who enforce the law - tend to be flexible. The situation described in the article describes a person who was badly treated by Uber drivers and would probably have tolerated a service in which the drivers treated her like anyone else even if technically Uber did not tick every single box of the ADA. It might even be counter productive to force Uber to provide a non-discriminatory service to everybody everywhere. The law sets a high standard that we should all strive to meet but the courts tend to be full plaintiffs who have been wronged by companies failing to provide even the bare-minimum service. This appears to be the case here and we should probably focus on how to grasp the low hanging fruit before trying to come up with the "perfect" solution.