11 ms·

Uber pays millions resolving DOJ lawsuit for overcharging disabled people

thewebcount 4y ago
I'm glad they got a fine, but I'm concerned that a) they'll go right back to discriminating when the 2-year period mentioned is up, and b) I'm not sure requiring the user to get a waiver is the right approach. It's more PII that Uber now stores and can be used to discriminate in other ways that might not be detectable from the outside.
- viscanti 4y ago
  Could it be that they launched a feature to compensate drivers for waiting around (not getting paid as the customer only pays for on trip time) and they didn't intend to discriminate? I get that big tech companies are evil, but is the theory that they intentionally wanted to cause harm to disabled people? That doesn't seem to be supported by their actions once they were notified about the issue so it's weird to see concern about them doing it again in two years. For customers who aren't disabled, should they be able to make drivers wait around for a long time or should they pay? If they should pay, how else would they give exemptions to disabled people? If they shouldn't pay, then why would drivers sit around not making money? It seems like it's fair to compensate those drivers for their time (most jobs work like that) and if people don't have a good reason for that, they should be paying for the time they're making that driver wait.
  - pineaux 4y ago
    Are you saying disabled people should pay more?
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      Why shouldn't they? They use more of service in this case time. So of course they should pay for it.
      - dimensi0nal 4y ago
        > Why shouldn't they? Reasonable accommodations.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        CPLX 4y ago
        Asking a multi-billion dollar company to make reasonable accommodations so Americans who suffer from disabilities can still use their products and services is probably not something you can reasonably compare to slavery.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        The cost should fall on Uber. Or the government. Not the employee or the disabled customer.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Exactly. There should be some sort of governmental department where the disabled could file claims for reimbursement with appropriate paper work. Then these claims could be verified and support given in due time. Kinda like insurance work. Even further maybe there could be system of prior authorizations where eligible people can request decisions before using services.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        Or, just give them a monthly stipend to cover any/all costs. They file once, get thee stupid, maybe re-up annually or every few years. It's not like their costs are going to go away - being disabled is just more costly. Italy has(had?) a similar program for residents with celiac disease (requires a gluten-free diet). It's a max 140 euro/month stipend to cover the higher costs of groceries.
        4y ago
    - syrrim 4y ago
      They're saying the opposite.
    - londons_explore 4y ago
      I am saying disabled people should pay more, and the state should give them free money to cover the higher costs they incur for day to day services. Trying to get every business to charge all customers equally, even when some customers are far more costly to serve is a bad model. Better to just let the business charge whatever the real cost of providing the service is, and directly subsidize the disabled person to cover that increased cost. /Unpopular opinion
      - foobiekr 4y ago
        Why should the state subsidize Uber?
        alistairSH 4y ago
        That's the wrong view. The state is subsidizing the disabled residents, so they can live their lives without undue burden. Those subsidizes might be used with Uber or a regular cab or some other transit provider.
        aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        If you reimburse Uber use, they'll nonzero amount of times choose Uber, keeping them in business.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        And? We wouldn’t be reimbursing just for Uber, it would apply to any transit (I’m assuming taxis have the same problem). Running Uber out of business isn’t the point. Making the lives of citizens easier is the point. If Uber can make a business out of that, more power to them.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Are you suggesting disabled people receive a regular fixed sum from the government, or that they'd have to individually apply each trip for the compensation? Both seem problematic/inefficient to me, compared to having Uber being able to, for instance, reduce/offset their reportable taxable income to compensate for the cost of providing services to disabled customers.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      yes if they use more resources. they should pay more.
- hulitu 4y ago
  I'm sure that UBER will follow the law as they always did. /s
- foobiekr 4y ago
  It's Uber. Of _course_ they will go right back to doing something unethical when the heat is off. It may not even last two years. I really have come to believe that computer science and EE programs should include two mandatory semesters in ethics. So many of the companies in the space are laughably, comic-book-villian-level bad. People defend them because they also pay super well.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
paul7986 4y ago
Anyone read what happened to that self driver who killed that pedesterian ... Uber threw them under the bus. Even after Travis they continue to be an Uber disgusting company. https://www.wired.com/story/uber-self-driving-car-fatal-crash/ https://www.wired.com/story/uber-self-driving-car-fatal-cras...
- kibwen 4y ago
  > Uber threw them under the bus. Modern times call for modern idioms: "threw them in front of the Uber".
  - paul7986 4y ago
    Indeed and of course I am downvoted for pointing out their Uber trashy behavior! Which is relevant to the post/the article noting their disgusting behavior against the disabled.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  The driver was watching videos on their phone instead of watching the road. They are not a good target for your sympathy, independent of whether you also hate Uber.
  - sushid 4y ago
    Did you read the article? She was allegedly doing her job, looking at her work phone from time to time. Her personal phone playing a Hulu show was in the passenger seat (which she apparently was listening to). > When Vasquez was looking at that phone for several seconds at a time, the defense writes, she was monitoring the company Slack, “doing her job.” Her personal phone, on the other hand, was significantly farther away, on the passenger seat. This differs from what Vasquez told the NTSB, but her attorneys argue the video is clear, and exculpatory: After the crash, the dashcam shows her reaching over to the passenger side to grab her personal phone and call 911.
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
bernf 4y ago
Not sure how I feel about this. I see a similar issue in what I consider mistreatment of delivery workers. There have been delivery services and transport services for disabled/elderly for a while now. People have been replacing them with gig workers and I'm not exactly sure who to blame or feel sorry for. A post a while ago on reddit was someone who was complaining about a doordasher who didn't want to wait and bring like multiple bags of cat litter like up 3 flights of stairs. The amount of inconsiderate abuse people have towards them (making them wait, navigate buildings) is a poor allocation of resources.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  poor allocation of resources Computers are resources. Iron ore is a resource. People aren't resources. They're people. The problem is the tech industry trying to treat people like resources. If the delivery people are paid fairly by the delivery companies, then they will be more willing to do a good and thorough job, which includes navigating buildings. I've been an Uber driver, and yeah, some people are awful. But I'm also tired of getting calls from Favor delivery people telling me I have to meet them in a parking lot three miles away to collect my groceries because they're running late going to the club, and this is only a "side hustle" they do on Friday nights. If I'm paying a delivery fee, plus a tip, I expect them to complete their jobs.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    The key thing here is that the optimization model for "deciding if an employee is doing a good job" has to be more complicated than "time to deliver," or it's simply anti-human.
  - viscanti 4y ago
    > The problem is the tech industry trying to treat people like resources. Isn't that true for most types of jobs? There's a role called "Human Resources" in most medium and large sized companies. Are factory jobs leaning in to embrace the humanity of workers and not thinking of them and calling them resources? Would we find things substantially better in most fast food restaurants? Gig companies are at least letting people decide when they want to work and when they want to do something else with a degree of flexibility that seems unmatched everywhere outside of the gig economy.
nonameiguess 4y ago
I'm glad for this finding, I suppose, but the world discriminates against disabled people in many more ways than this without any obvious recourse. As just a personal example, I'm over 6 ft with 10 screws in my spine and really can't ride in the back seat of a standard sedan for more than a few minutes without being in quite a bit of pain. Ever since Uber started the "no passengers in the front seat" policy thanks to Covid, that means I can only take Uber XL, which costs more no matter what. It's even worse for air travel, since I can only travel 1st class for anything more than a local flight. Airlines are only annoying most people when they squeeze us for space to the bare minimum of an average-sized, completely healthy person, but for others, they've giving us spasms and leaving us hobbled for hours after the flight.
- mjevans 4y ago
  Instead of a seat I'd prefer padded roller beds like that commercial starship in the 5th Element (movie). Please let me relax in an isolated storage pod. Bonus if these are modular and can be loaded in the terminal then computer packed into the aircraft.
rdxm 4y ago
Tepix 4y ago
I've stayed away from Uber ever since their first scandal, and it keeps getting "better". How fucked up can it get? They already killed someone with their shitty "self-driving" car... now this.
wanderr 4y ago
I was recently in a wheelchair for a few weeks. Uber's ADA issues go beyond the scope of this lawsuit. Uber would consistently lie about the availability of a WAV vehicle, showing one as being nearby with low wait. Then when I would order it, either nothing was available or the wait time was completely insane. I never successfully hailed one.
- shagie 4y ago
  In a regular taxi service for an area, the taxis are required to have ADA availability (and licensing for them needs to be available). For example https://www.understandingtheada.com/blog/2012/01/24/licensing-regulations-and-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/ https://www.understandingtheada.com/blog/2012/01/24/licensin... > Therefore the court ordered that the Commission to propose a comprehensive plan that provides meaningful access to taxi services for passengers using wheelchairs. The plan must include targeted goals and standards as well as anticipated measurable results. Furthermore, until such a plan was proposed and approved by the court, all new taxi medallions sold or new street hail livery licenses or permits issued by the Commission must be for wheelchair accessible vehicles. Some additional information - https://drhandicap.com/insights/can-taxis-refuse-service-based-on-disability/ https://drhandicap.com/insights/can-taxis-refuse-service-bas... While this is more expensive for the taxi company to have ADA vehicles, that cost is spread out across the entirety of the customer base. The difficulty comes with ride share that aren't licensed and displace taxi services resulting in difficulty spreading out the cost across all taxi rides... and that the ride share drivers (and companies) don't provide sufficient coverage is compared to the requirement for licensed taxis.
  - TuringNYC 4y ago
    >> The difficulty comes with ride share that aren't licensed and displace taxi services resulting in difficulty spreading out the cost across all taxi rides... and that the ride share drivers (and companies) don't provide sufficient coverage is compared to the requirement for licensed taxis. Wouldnt it make sense for Uber to subsidize the ADA compliant drivers for their extra costs (or reduced yield) and then for Uber to spread that cost across their entire service?
techmba 4y ago
I stopped using Uber because their drivers kept ditching my pregnant friends. The second they see them, they cancel and bail. Lyft was far more supportive.
- saddlerustle 4y ago
  Uber stopped being able to punish drivers for cancelling due to the employee status lawsuits.
  - hourago 4y ago
    It seems that the taxi industry had all this figured out and we are just going back to square one.
- dgaaaaaaaaaa 4y ago
  Might be a stupid question. What was the reason for ditching?
retrocryptid 4y ago
I occasionally lose my eyesight due to a neurological condition. Getting either an Uber or a Lyft while visually disabled is a bit of a crap-shoot. Half the drivers I've summoned would just give up when I asked them to honk their horn or shout so I could hear where they were parked. "Millions" are just a minor inconvenience for either company. They'll factor it into their cost of doing business and get the next round of investors to fund it. Sadly, this kind of thing is going to go on for a while.
paulpauper 4y ago
Between this and Coinbase, the DOJ is firing on all pistons.
Madmallard 4y ago
Why is this company allowed to exist? I feel like things like this are an instant like [X] where the company should just be actually taken down entirely and the owners thrown in prison. Same with extremely scammy health insurance companies like United Healthcare. I legitimately do not understand why they are allowed to exist with blatant criminal behavior.

I'm glad they got a fine, but I'm concerned that a) they'll go right back to discriminating when the 2-year period mentioned is up, and b) I'm not sure requiring the user to get a waiver is the right approach. It's more PII that Uber now stores and can be used to discriminate in other ways that might not be detectable from the outside.

viscanti 4y ago
Could it be that they launched a feature to compensate drivers for waiting around (not getting paid as the customer only pays for on trip time) and they didn't intend to discriminate? I get that big tech companies are evil, but is the theory that they intentionally wanted to cause harm to disabled people? That doesn't seem to be supported by their actions once they were notified about the issue so it's weird to see concern about them doing it again in two years. For customers who aren't disabled, should they be able to make drivers wait around for a long time or should they pay? If they should pay, how else would they give exemptions to disabled people? If they shouldn't pay, then why would drivers sit around not making money? It seems like it's fair to compensate those drivers for their time (most jobs work like that) and if people don't have a good reason for that, they should be paying for the time they're making that driver wait.
- pineaux 4y ago
  Are you saying disabled people should pay more?
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Why shouldn't they? They use more of service in this case time. So of course they should pay for it.
    - dimensi0nal 4y ago
      > Why shouldn't they? Reasonable accommodations.
      - Ekaros 4y ago
        CPLX 4y ago
        Asking a multi-billion dollar company to make reasonable accommodations so Americans who suffer from disabilities can still use their products and services is probably not something you can reasonably compare to slavery.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        The cost should fall on Uber. Or the government. Not the employee or the disabled customer.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Exactly. There should be some sort of governmental department where the disabled could file claims for reimbursement with appropriate paper work. Then these claims could be verified and support given in due time. Kinda like insurance work. Even further maybe there could be system of prior authorizations where eligible people can request decisions before using services.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        Or, just give them a monthly stipend to cover any/all costs. They file once, get thee stupid, maybe re-up annually or every few years. It's not like their costs are going to go away - being disabled is just more costly. Italy has(had?) a similar program for residents with celiac disease (requires a gluten-free diet). It's a max 140 euro/month stipend to cover the higher costs of groceries.
        4y ago
  - syrrim 4y ago
    They're saying the opposite.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    I am saying disabled people should pay more, and the state should give them free money to cover the higher costs they incur for day to day services. Trying to get every business to charge all customers equally, even when some customers are far more costly to serve is a bad model. Better to just let the business charge whatever the real cost of providing the service is, and directly subsidize the disabled person to cover that increased cost. /Unpopular opinion
    - foobiekr 4y ago
      Why should the state subsidize Uber?
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        That's the wrong view. The state is subsidizing the disabled residents, so they can live their lives without undue burden. Those subsidizes might be used with Uber or a regular cab or some other transit provider.
        aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        If you reimburse Uber use, they'll nonzero amount of times choose Uber, keeping them in business.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        And? We wouldn’t be reimbursing just for Uber, it would apply to any transit (I’m assuming taxis have the same problem). Running Uber out of business isn’t the point. Making the lives of citizens easier is the point. If Uber can make a business out of that, more power to them.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Are you suggesting disabled people receive a regular fixed sum from the government, or that they'd have to individually apply each trip for the compensation? Both seem problematic/inefficient to me, compared to having Uber being able to, for instance, reduce/offset their reportable taxable income to compensate for the cost of providing services to disabled customers.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    yes if they use more resources. they should pay more.
hulitu 4y ago
I'm sure that UBER will follow the law as they always did. /s
foobiekr 4y ago
It's Uber. Of _course_ they will go right back to doing something unethical when the heat is off. It may not even last two years. I really have come to believe that computer science and EE programs should include two mandatory semesters in ethics. So many of the companies in the space are laughably, comic-book-villian-level bad. People defend them because they also pay super well.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

paul7986 4y ago

Anyone read what happened to that self driver who killed that pedesterian ... Uber threw them under the bus. Even after Travis they continue to be an Uber disgusting company. https://www.wired.com/story/uber-self-driving-car-fatal-crash/ https://www.wired.com/story/uber-self-driving-car-fatal-cras...

kibwen 4y ago
> Uber threw them under the bus. Modern times call for modern idioms: "threw them in front of the Uber".
- paul7986 4y ago
  Indeed and of course I am downvoted for pointing out their Uber trashy behavior! Which is relevant to the post/the article noting their disgusting behavior against the disabled.
bpodgursky 4y ago
The driver was watching videos on their phone instead of watching the road. They are not a good target for your sympathy, independent of whether you also hate Uber.
- sushid 4y ago
  Did you read the article? She was allegedly doing her job, looking at her work phone from time to time. Her personal phone playing a Hulu show was in the passenger seat (which she apparently was listening to). > When Vasquez was looking at that phone for several seconds at a time, the defense writes, she was monitoring the company Slack, “doing her job.” Her personal phone, on the other hand, was significantly farther away, on the passenger seat. This differs from what Vasquez told the NTSB, but her attorneys argue the video is clear, and exculpatory: After the crash, the dashcam shows her reaching over to the passenger side to grab her personal phone and call 911.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago

bernf 4y ago

Not sure how I feel about this. I see a similar issue in what I consider mistreatment of delivery workers. There have been delivery services and transport services for disabled/elderly for a while now. People have been replacing them with gig workers and I'm not exactly sure who to blame or feel sorry for. A post a while ago on reddit was someone who was complaining about a doordasher who didn't want to wait and bring like multiple bags of cat litter like up 3 flights of stairs. The amount of inconsiderate abuse people have towards them (making them wait, navigate buildings) is a poor allocation of resources.

reaperducer 4y ago
poor allocation of resources Computers are resources. Iron ore is a resource. People aren't resources. They're people. The problem is the tech industry trying to treat people like resources. If the delivery people are paid fairly by the delivery companies, then they will be more willing to do a good and thorough job, which includes navigating buildings. I've been an Uber driver, and yeah, some people are awful. But I'm also tired of getting calls from Favor delivery people telling me I have to meet them in a parking lot three miles away to collect my groceries because they're running late going to the club, and this is only a "side hustle" they do on Friday nights. If I'm paying a delivery fee, plus a tip, I expect them to complete their jobs.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  The key thing here is that the optimization model for "deciding if an employee is doing a good job" has to be more complicated than "time to deliver," or it's simply anti-human.
- viscanti 4y ago
  > The problem is the tech industry trying to treat people like resources. Isn't that true for most types of jobs? There's a role called "Human Resources" in most medium and large sized companies. Are factory jobs leaning in to embrace the humanity of workers and not thinking of them and calling them resources? Would we find things substantially better in most fast food restaurants? Gig companies are at least letting people decide when they want to work and when they want to do something else with a degree of flexibility that seems unmatched everywhere outside of the gig economy.

nonameiguess 4y ago

I'm glad for this finding, I suppose, but the world discriminates against disabled people in many more ways than this without any obvious recourse. As just a personal example, I'm over 6 ft with 10 screws in my spine and really can't ride in the back seat of a standard sedan for more than a few minutes without being in quite a bit of pain. Ever since Uber started the "no passengers in the front seat" policy thanks to Covid, that means I can only take Uber XL, which costs more no matter what. It's even worse for air travel, since I can only travel 1st class for anything more than a local flight. Airlines are only annoying most people when they squeeze us for space to the bare minimum of an average-sized, completely healthy person, but for others, they've giving us spasms and leaving us hobbled for hours after the flight.

mjevans 4y ago
Instead of a seat I'd prefer padded roller beds like that commercial starship in the 5th Element (movie). Please let me relax in an isolated storage pod. Bonus if these are modular and can be loaded in the terminal then computer packed into the aircraft.

rdxm 4y ago

Tepix 4y ago

I've stayed away from Uber ever since their first scandal, and it keeps getting "better". How fucked up can it get? They already killed someone with their shitty "self-driving" car... now this.

wanderr 4y ago

I was recently in a wheelchair for a few weeks. Uber's ADA issues go beyond the scope of this lawsuit. Uber would consistently lie about the availability of a WAV vehicle, showing one as being nearby with low wait. Then when I would order it, either nothing was available or the wait time was completely insane. I never successfully hailed one.

shagie 4y ago
In a regular taxi service for an area, the taxis are required to have ADA availability (and licensing for them needs to be available). For example https://www.understandingtheada.com/blog/2012/01/24/licensing-regulations-and-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/ https://www.understandingtheada.com/blog/2012/01/24/licensin... > Therefore the court ordered that the Commission to propose a comprehensive plan that provides meaningful access to taxi services for passengers using wheelchairs. The plan must include targeted goals and standards as well as anticipated measurable results. Furthermore, until such a plan was proposed and approved by the court, all new taxi medallions sold or new street hail livery licenses or permits issued by the Commission must be for wheelchair accessible vehicles. Some additional information - https://drhandicap.com/insights/can-taxis-refuse-service-based-on-disability/ https://drhandicap.com/insights/can-taxis-refuse-service-bas... While this is more expensive for the taxi company to have ADA vehicles, that cost is spread out across the entirety of the customer base. The difficulty comes with ride share that aren't licensed and displace taxi services resulting in difficulty spreading out the cost across all taxi rides... and that the ride share drivers (and companies) don't provide sufficient coverage is compared to the requirement for licensed taxis.
- TuringNYC 4y ago
  >> The difficulty comes with ride share that aren't licensed and displace taxi services resulting in difficulty spreading out the cost across all taxi rides... and that the ride share drivers (and companies) don't provide sufficient coverage is compared to the requirement for licensed taxis. Wouldnt it make sense for Uber to subsidize the ADA compliant drivers for their extra costs (or reduced yield) and then for Uber to spread that cost across their entire service?

techmba 4y ago

I stopped using Uber because their drivers kept ditching my pregnant friends. The second they see them, they cancel and bail. Lyft was far more supportive.

saddlerustle 4y ago
Uber stopped being able to punish drivers for cancelling due to the employee status lawsuits.
- hourago 4y ago
  It seems that the taxi industry had all this figured out and we are just going back to square one.
dgaaaaaaaaaa 4y ago
Might be a stupid question. What was the reason for ditching?

retrocryptid 4y ago

I occasionally lose my eyesight due to a neurological condition. Getting either an Uber or a Lyft while visually disabled is a bit of a crap-shoot. Half the drivers I've summoned would just give up when I asked them to honk their horn or shout so I could hear where they were parked. "Millions" are just a minor inconvenience for either company. They'll factor it into their cost of doing business and get the next round of investors to fund it. Sadly, this kind of thing is going to go on for a while.

paulpauper 4y ago

Between this and Coinbase, the DOJ is firing on all pistons.

Madmallard 4y ago

Why is this company allowed to exist? I feel like things like this are an instant like [X] where the company should just be actually taken down entirely and the owners thrown in prison. Same with extremely scammy health insurance companies like United Healthcare. I legitimately do not understand why they are allowed to exist with blatant criminal behavior.