3 ms·
> 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 anima
by 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.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoThe question is if this court considers Uber responsible because the driver is an employee, then how is the driver not an employee for all other purposes? Other courts have maintained the drivers are not employees. And usually, courts stay consistent unless over ruled by superior courts.
- Ekaros 6y agoUber is company with over 15 employees. As such it must follow the law. So in the end it has to find some driver who is willing to transport customer. But on other hand all drivers as independent contractors can refuse. It's catch-22. But court can reasonably expect Uber being able to pay enough for someone to take the job...