4 ms·

I'm not sure how this could be fixed though. Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber

by xmprt 6y ago

I'm not sure how this could be fixed though. Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store. Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
amyjess 6y ago
Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers and terminating them for noncompliance. Perhaps they can even require drivers to sign contracts making them pay five-figure fines in addition to termination in the case they're found to have engaged in discrimination. They could make drivers keep dashcams, with microphones, in their cars and stream them to Uber HQ where a random sample of rides will be analyzed by corporate for violations. They could hire blind people with service dogs to act as "secret shoppers", requesting rides in random parts of random cities, and then reporting back to corporate as to how they were treated.
- tinalumfoil 6y ago
  > Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers and terminating them for noncompliance I know some do it for fun but most people don't become Uber drivers because they're swimming in cash. Your solution to helping the blind is to give 5-figure liability to low income drivers, and put them on a tight leash as you secretly try to trip them up.
mcguire 6y ago
Why should Uber ban drivers that do not comply if Uber faces no consequences for the drivers' actions? Why should Uber spend one cent of investors' money "allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app" if Uber is not responsible?
whimsicalism 6y ago
Yes, employers are generally liable for their employees actions.
omgwtfbbq 6y ago
>Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? Yes, because they are employees of Uber and this is why they tried to argue that they were actually contractors to avoid liability. >It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store. A better analogy would be Cashiers repeatedly refusing to check out a blind women's groceries. >Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'. In the US at least all companies are beholden to the ADA and would certainly be liable to compliance. You seem to think that Uber drivers are not really employed by Uber which I don't think is a settled legal question but that argument was rejected in this case.

by xmprt 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

amyjess 6y ago

Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers and terminating them for noncompliance. Perhaps they can even require drivers to sign contracts making them pay five-figure fines in addition to termination in the case they're found to have engaged in discrimination. They could make drivers keep dashcams, with microphones, in their cars and stream them to Uber HQ where a random sample of rides will be analyzed by corporate for violations. They could hire blind people with service dogs to act as "secret shoppers", requesting rides in random parts of random cities, and then reporting back to corporate as to how they were treated.

tinalumfoil 6y ago
> Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers and terminating them for noncompliance I know some do it for fun but most people don't become Uber drivers because they're swimming in cash. Your solution to helping the blind is to give 5-figure liability to low income drivers, and put them on a tight leash as you secretly try to trip them up.

mcguire 6y ago

Why should Uber ban drivers that do not comply if Uber faces no consequences for the drivers' actions? Why should Uber spend one cent of investors' money "allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app" if Uber is not responsible?

whimsicalism 6y ago

Yes, employers are generally liable for their employees actions.

omgwtfbbq 6y ago

>Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? Yes, because they are employees of Uber and this is why they tried to argue that they were actually contractors to avoid liability. >It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store. A better analogy would be Cashiers repeatedly refusing to check out a blind women's groceries. >Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'. In the US at least all companies are beholden to the ADA and would certainly be liable to compliance. You seem to think that Uber drivers are not really employed by Uber which I don't think is a settled legal question but that argument was rejected in this case.