10 ms·

Uber refuses to serve blind users with service animals

24 points by bontoJR 12y ago

unwind 12y ago
For example, Leena Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver forced Ms. Dawes’ guide dog into the closed trunk of the UberX sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. Whoa, that's just terrible and should (in my non-US opinion) be cause for reporting the driver in question to the police for abusing the dog.
- jbob2000 12y ago
  How is that different than shoving them in a cage and stuffing them in an airplane's cargo bay?
- griffinmahon 12y ago
  Shouldn't the act's terribleness, or if it actually qualifies as abuse, be related to how long the ride was? Some people put their dogs in cages at night, for instance.
  - mikhailt 12y ago
    No. You do not put a dog in an unsecured place like the trunk of a stranger's car. Keep in mind, we're not talking about regular standard taxis, these are strangers working on behalf of Uber with no regulations. A bump on the road could harm the animal if there are sharp objects not secured in the trunk. Cages are built to secure the animals, trunks are not, especially ones that does not belong to you. How about I shove you in the trunk instead of the backseat if the ride is only for 2-3 seconds. Are you okay with that?
raverbashing 12y ago
Upon signup Uber should present options, like "user is accompained by a guide dog" Then drivers are informed and free to accept or refuse such requests. Edit: I don't get the hate, when you buy a plane ticket it's the same thing, it has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to deal with being able to accommodate them. So if the person can't fit a service dog in their car, they won't have them service that call but send another car that is better for the guide dog.
- DanBC 12y ago
  People with disabilities already face significant discrimination. Why should we make that discrimination easier? (Edit: I meant to upvote you, but it seems I accidentally downvoted. Sorry. )
  - scuba7183 12y ago
    Because I don't want a dog in my car
    - scott_s 12y ago
      Then don't use your car as a taxi.
    - cpncrunch 12y ago
      Can I ask why not? A well behaved dog -- which by definition a guide dog is -- is generally cleaner and better behaved than many humans. To be honest if I was running a taxi service I would prefer well trained dogs to humans.
  - thomaskcr 12y ago
    I think not being able to accommodate a dog is pretty legitimate. Dog fur is irritating for a lot of people and I have yet to see labradoodle guide dogs. My father can't even go to indoor parties at houses with dogs, so I don't see how him not allowing a dog would be discrimination - its not because they're blind, he just doesn't want an asthma attack.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  Except refusing the request on those grounds is against the law.
  - raverbashing 12y ago
    You are right However I'm not sure how does the ADA applies, if it's to Uber as a whole or to the individual driver.
imgabe 12y ago
n its motion to dismiss, Uber argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that as a private company, it is not bound by the provisions of the ADA That doesn't even make sense. Any place that accommodates the public is bound by the ADA. Most buildings are owned by private companies, but they are still required to be ADA-compliant.
- bontoJR 12y ago
  This is, probably, the most absurd part in the whole article. It's a kind of: "we are a private company, we are big, so we don't care about rules". This is extremely dangerous as behavior, anyway, the judge decided to proceed I am curious to see what will the outcome be.
- ndarilek 12y ago
  You might be astounded at the lengths businesses go to to win ADA lawsuits. My girlfriend uses a wheelchair, and after months of negotiation with the clinic where her doctor works, she brought suit against them for not providing her with accessible tables, or indeed an accessible bathroom to provide urine samples in. She's an activist who routinely gets arrested for acts of civil disobedience. Anyhow, the clinic's lawyers asked her lots of questions about her prior arrests and criminal record, as if having one permitted them to violate her civil rights. Unfortunately it was a video deposition, so while her lawyer could object strenuously and while the judge could (and ultimately did) ignore the lines of questioning, they still grilled her about irrelevance in order to justify not providing the accommodations. The absolutely insane thing about all of this is that the clinic already had most of the accommodations in question. They had accessible tables already, they just didn't teach front desk staff about them and had policies set up that required doctors to work exclusively in specific areas. The only significant change was a bathroom remodel, and they're not a small clinic by any means. But the fact that they dragged her criminal history into the light made absolutely no sense, compounded by the fact that said criminal history involved getting arrested specifically to fight access violations like that one. Not at all surprised by Uber's tactic here. Sickens me that we still have to fight very basic battles like these 25 years after the ADA was passed. I just want to grab some people and shake them until loose braincells fall into place or something. Edit: Oh, right, and opposing counsel wanted the passwords to her Gmail and Facebook so they could read anything she wrote about the clinic in question. They also considered expanding that request to anyone she may have spoken to/emailed about them (I.e. me as her boyfriend.) I wish they'd have tried that so I could pull in counsel of my own.
wehadfun 12y ago
Uber gets a lot of negative headlines. Are the people running it really assholes?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jbob2000 12y ago
  No, but people don't like change.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  jbob2000's dead comment here said, > No, but people don't like change. Please. Why can't it be both? It's pretty clear to me from things I've read here that the guys in charge of Uber are a bunch of jerks. It's also pretty clear that the various crackdowns on Uber at the behest of the local taxi lobby+ to "protect" me from being able to take a cheaper, better ride home from the airport... they're also a bunch of jerks. (+ and/or the local mafia, depending on your jurisdiction)
scarmig 12y ago
Of note: this is a recurring issue that has decades of history. See, for instance, http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Taxicab_Report.pdf?docID=242 http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Taxicab_Repo... Another issue that got some press for a couple years after 9/11 is Muslim drivers refusing to let guide dogs into their cars. (Aside: this would probably be legal under all the religious freedom restoration acts going around.) The best thing about Uber consolidating the taxi industry is that it rationalizes these practices and makes them legible to democratic processes and regulation.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  > (Aside: this would probably be legal under all the religious freedom restoration acts going around.) Under most of the RFRAs, a government with a compelling interest (e.g. allowing the blind to take taxis) would have to use the least restrictive means to achieve it. In the case of something like a car service company or Uber, this could mean permitting individual drivers to decline the hail, but guaranteeing that someone will be available to answer it. Then, if all goes well, the blind person gets his or her ride, the religious person goes about his or her religious life without losing his job, and everyone's happy. Consider also Utah, which permits a county clerk to opt out of officiating a same-sex marriage out of religious objections... if a substitute is available. (For cities with more street-hailed cabs, in the style of London and New York, this may not be enough, but enforcement of any rules on street hails is problematic, as anyone who has tried to take a NYC taxi somewhere inconvenient is able to tell you.)
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  The first time this issue was reported I did some digging, and yes a lot of the drivers were Muslim. Or rather, you could very easily infer so, because only a few of them actually said that, or made it clear and then changed their story when they later learned their religion wasn't a defense. One person changed their story to "severe allergies" for instance.
tomasien 12y ago
The Uber driver app and orientation reinforce over and over that you must serve people with service dogs. Just FYI.
- dfxm12 12y ago
  Are the app and orientation the same if you drive a black car or UberX, or one of Uber's other services?
Agustus 12y ago
I am excited that more people can learn the crazy world of business compliance and its insanity, especially within the ADA compliance. What a great incentives lesson: * You have a business that wants to make sure that employee cars are in tip top condition. * You have an employee who wants to maintain tip-top condition. * You have a user who would like to board their service animal * There exists a certain percentage of service animals that their service animal status is for emotional stress and does not have an animal trained to the level of a blind user. These animals tear up a car, urinate within a car, etc. Witness the "service animals" on airplanes defecating and rerouting a plane. [1] Getting the "service animal" status entitles owners to a lot of benefits [2]. The owner does not want their car damaged by the "service animal" and lose the ability to provide services to future clients. The future clients will give bad ratings for the physical appearance of the car and take the owner's ability to work out of operation. If this issue was brought up by the taxi industry, I want to elect that person to the National Security Council, because this is a brilliant solution to bring down Uber. 1. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Dog-Poo-Forces-Philly-Bound-Flight-to-Make-Emergency-Landing-Report-261252191.html http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Dog-Poo-Forces-Phi... 2. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/08/03/fliers-scam-airlines-pets-service-dogs/13325733/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/08/03/flie...
- imgabe 12y ago
  I get that that's a concern for the driver, but that's a risk you take when you serve the public. Should the driver be allowed to refuse people with infants because the infant might throw up in the car or their diaper might leak? Should they be allowed to refuse drunk people? Sick people? Where does it stop? If you serve the public, serve all the public, or don't do it at all.
  - Agustus 12y ago
    That's the fun of these service economy start-ups. When you run a hotel and a dog tears up the room, you can off set repair costs with a number of other profitable rooms. If you are the owner operator and your vehicle goes out of commission, what is the offset?
jasode 12y ago
The knee jerk reaction is to defend the rights of the disabled (blind people in this case) but I'd like to ask if there's any fair argument to be made for the drivers at all? For example, if an Uber driver has dog allergies[1], should blind service dogs override that? Should the blind person's right to mobility trump the driver's discomfort? The discomfort could also continue (shedding, dander) after the blind passenger has left the car. Would it be ok if Uber had an option for driver profiles for drivers to check "I have dog allergies." ? I'd anticipate the reaction to be "we shouldn't allow Uber to legally offer that option because every driver would check it to keep dogs out of their cars". I'm not sure if that would be true. Wouldn't there be a good percentage of drivers who would love to welcome dogs into their cars? I don't know. I'm not an Uber driver so I don't have any vested interest either way. Just curious what people think. Also, let's compare the situation to renting apartments or housing. It is illegal to disallow service dogs even if the landlord has a "no pets" policy. The law allows for the disabled have an exemption from such policies. But, the landlords also have an exemption from that exemption if the housing is owner-occupied.[2] In other words, the landlord can't prevent the service dog from living at the rental condo out on the beach but the landlord can prevent the dog from moving into an upstairs loft in his house. Presumably, most Uber drivers are driving their personal cars and not rotating the driving among a fleet of rental cars from the taxi corporation. Is there a parallel between renting owner-occupied housing and driving a personal car for money? Is there a parallel between Uber-to-personal_car and Airbnb-to-residential-home? Consider that a car is a much more intimate space than a house. [1] http://www.webmd.com/allergies/guide/dog-allergies http://www.webmd.com/allergies/guide/dog-allergies [2] https://www.airbnb.com/support/article/898?topic=273 https://www.airbnb.com/support/article/898?topic=273
- LordKano 12y ago
  I was just thinking this. I am allergic to animal dander. I can't be around cats, dogs or rabbits and the like without sneezing, wheezing and coughing. Why should someone else's disability take precedence over mine? Yes, I'm sure that some drivers would falsely claim to have an allergy just to keep animals out of their cars but some passengers would also lie about their pets being service animals just to get them in the vehicles.
dbg31415 12y ago
A few things: * Service animals aren't just dogs. Miniature horses, pigs, cats, whatever. Don't forget Emotional Support Animals. (Why are those important? Because they enable people with special needs / mental illness to function in "normal" situations.) * Uber drivers don't want animals in their personal cars, got it. But it's a choice to be an Uber driver, not a choice to be disabled or need an emotional support animal. When we think about this, we should think about who has the choice here. There's an easy fix. Default every Uber drive to accept all animals. Allow the Uber drivers to opt out, and in so doing lower their rank in search and have a badge next to their name, "Restrictions Apply" or something along those lines. Let their customers choose if they want to give money to people who are discriminatory. People with the disabilities shouldn't be forced to check a box or ask for special assistance, that's why you would default all drivers to accept pets and explain why it's important. Being able to provide a service to all users is important, but for fringe groups there isn't always an economic drive to do so. Like providing a seat belt, training with how to handle service animals should be mandatory. (The one driver put a service dog in the trunk?! Please tell me he isn't working at Uber any more.) Personal note: Ever tried to take a kid who has special needs to see the Grand Canyon? What started out as a dream trip was soured by people in hotels making a huge stink about Emotional Support Dogs, and reminding us at every turn that we had a special needs kid with us. People could have been kind, they could have pulled us aside, or read the notes from their boss that we were coming... but every time we hit a new hotel people would inevitably yell at my cousin, who has DS, because he would bring his dog with him to the lobby or near the pool, or even on a trail. "No pets allowed!" Even though we called ahead, the staff on the ground wasn't trained to deal with service animals. Without his dog, the world was a scary place form my cousin; Emotional Support Dogs are like hearing aids or canes or a pair of glasses that way. Anyway if you see someone who has a dog in a place you wouldn't normally expect to see a dog, please assume they have a good reason for it. You don't know how much damage you can do with one comment, or one harsh tone. We're all just trying to get through the day as best we can.
- extra88 12y ago
  No, only dogs and miniature horses are service animals under the ADA. FHA and Air Carrier Access Act include other animals but don't cover other forms of transit, which would include Uber. Also, "Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA."[1] I'm not familiar with the standards by which a dog or any other animal is determined to be a reasonable accommodation for a disability. I know they're not limited to physical impairments. [1] http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
dbg31415 12y ago
Australia is ahead of us here. http://www.news.com.au/national/taxi-driver-told-blind-woman-put-guide-dog-in-the-boot-or-get-out/story-e6frfkvr-1225867465241 http://www.news.com.au/national/taxi-driver-told-blind-woman... $740 AUD fine for refusing to transport a dog. Taxis in the US already face suspension of license if they refuse service animals in most states. Only fair Uber be held to the same standards.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
calciphus 12y ago
Interestingly, I've travelled around San Francisco with a friend with a seeing eye dog. Taxis would stop, look at us, and drive off. One yelled "no pets" at her as she tried to get in, and took his foot off the brake so the car rolled. At least with Uber you can go after the drivers and file complaints.

24 points by bontoJR 12y ago

For example, Leena Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver forced Ms. Dawes’ guide dog into the closed trunk of the UberX sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. Whoa, that's just terrible and should (in my non-US opinion) be cause for reporting the driver in question to the police for abusing the dog.

jbob2000 12y ago
How is that different than shoving them in a cage and stuffing them in an airplane's cargo bay?
griffinmahon 12y ago
Shouldn't the act's terribleness, or if it actually qualifies as abuse, be related to how long the ride was? Some people put their dogs in cages at night, for instance.
- mikhailt 12y ago
  No. You do not put a dog in an unsecured place like the trunk of a stranger's car. Keep in mind, we're not talking about regular standard taxis, these are strangers working on behalf of Uber with no regulations. A bump on the road could harm the animal if there are sharp objects not secured in the trunk. Cages are built to secure the animals, trunks are not, especially ones that does not belong to you. How about I shove you in the trunk instead of the backseat if the ride is only for 2-3 seconds. Are you okay with that?

raverbashing 12y ago

Upon signup Uber should present options, like "user is accompained by a guide dog" Then drivers are informed and free to accept or refuse such requests. Edit: I don't get the hate, when you buy a plane ticket it's the same thing, it has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to deal with being able to accommodate them. So if the person can't fit a service dog in their car, they won't have them service that call but send another car that is better for the guide dog.

DanBC 12y ago
People with disabilities already face significant discrimination. Why should we make that discrimination easier? (Edit: I meant to upvote you, but it seems I accidentally downvoted. Sorry. )
- scuba7183 12y ago
  Because I don't want a dog in my car
  - scott_s 12y ago
    Then don't use your car as a taxi.
  - cpncrunch 12y ago
    Can I ask why not? A well behaved dog -- which by definition a guide dog is -- is generally cleaner and better behaved than many humans. To be honest if I was running a taxi service I would prefer well trained dogs to humans.
- thomaskcr 12y ago
  I think not being able to accommodate a dog is pretty legitimate. Dog fur is irritating for a lot of people and I have yet to see labradoodle guide dogs. My father can't even go to indoor parties at houses with dogs, so I don't see how him not allowing a dog would be discrimination - its not because they're blind, he just doesn't want an asthma attack.
cbd1984 12y ago
Except refusing the request on those grounds is against the law.
- raverbashing 12y ago
  You are right However I'm not sure how does the ADA applies, if it's to Uber as a whole or to the individual driver.

imgabe 12y ago

n its motion to dismiss, Uber argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that as a private company, it is not bound by the provisions of the ADA That doesn't even make sense. Any place that accommodates the public is bound by the ADA. Most buildings are owned by private companies, but they are still required to be ADA-compliant.

bontoJR 12y ago
This is, probably, the most absurd part in the whole article. It's a kind of: "we are a private company, we are big, so we don't care about rules". This is extremely dangerous as behavior, anyway, the judge decided to proceed I am curious to see what will the outcome be.
ndarilek 12y ago
You might be astounded at the lengths businesses go to to win ADA lawsuits. My girlfriend uses a wheelchair, and after months of negotiation with the clinic where her doctor works, she brought suit against them for not providing her with accessible tables, or indeed an accessible bathroom to provide urine samples in. She's an activist who routinely gets arrested for acts of civil disobedience. Anyhow, the clinic's lawyers asked her lots of questions about her prior arrests and criminal record, as if having one permitted them to violate her civil rights. Unfortunately it was a video deposition, so while her lawyer could object strenuously and while the judge could (and ultimately did) ignore the lines of questioning, they still grilled her about irrelevance in order to justify not providing the accommodations. The absolutely insane thing about all of this is that the clinic already had most of the accommodations in question. They had accessible tables already, they just didn't teach front desk staff about them and had policies set up that required doctors to work exclusively in specific areas. The only significant change was a bathroom remodel, and they're not a small clinic by any means. But the fact that they dragged her criminal history into the light made absolutely no sense, compounded by the fact that said criminal history involved getting arrested specifically to fight access violations like that one. Not at all surprised by Uber's tactic here. Sickens me that we still have to fight very basic battles like these 25 years after the ADA was passed. I just want to grab some people and shake them until loose braincells fall into place or something. Edit: Oh, right, and opposing counsel wanted the passwords to her Gmail and Facebook so they could read anything she wrote about the clinic in question. They also considered expanding that request to anyone she may have spoken to/emailed about them (I.e. me as her boyfriend.) I wish they'd have tried that so I could pull in counsel of my own.

wehadfun 12y ago

Uber gets a lot of negative headlines. Are the people running it really assholes?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jbob2000 12y ago
No, but people don't like change.
fennecfoxen 12y ago
jbob2000's dead comment here said, > No, but people don't like change. Please. Why can't it be both? It's pretty clear to me from things I've read here that the guys in charge of Uber are a bunch of jerks. It's also pretty clear that the various crackdowns on Uber at the behest of the local taxi lobby+ to "protect" me from being able to take a cheaper, better ride home from the airport... they're also a bunch of jerks. (+ and/or the local mafia, depending on your jurisdiction)

scarmig 12y ago

Of note: this is a recurring issue that has decades of history. See, for instance, http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Taxicab_Report.pdf?docID=242 http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Taxicab_Repo... Another issue that got some press for a couple years after 9/11 is Muslim drivers refusing to let guide dogs into their cars. (Aside: this would probably be legal under all the religious freedom restoration acts going around.) The best thing about Uber consolidating the taxi industry is that it rationalizes these practices and makes them legible to democratic processes and regulation.

fennecfoxen 12y ago
> (Aside: this would probably be legal under all the religious freedom restoration acts going around.) Under most of the RFRAs, a government with a compelling interest (e.g. allowing the blind to take taxis) would have to use the least restrictive means to achieve it. In the case of something like a car service company or Uber, this could mean permitting individual drivers to decline the hail, but guaranteeing that someone will be available to answer it. Then, if all goes well, the blind person gets his or her ride, the religious person goes about his or her religious life without losing his job, and everyone's happy. Consider also Utah, which permits a county clerk to opt out of officiating a same-sex marriage out of religious objections... if a substitute is available. (For cities with more street-hailed cabs, in the style of London and New York, this may not be enough, but enforcement of any rules on street hails is problematic, as anyone who has tried to take a NYC taxi somewhere inconvenient is able to tell you.)
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
The first time this issue was reported I did some digging, and yes a lot of the drivers were Muslim. Or rather, you could very easily infer so, because only a few of them actually said that, or made it clear and then changed their story when they later learned their religion wasn't a defense. One person changed their story to "severe allergies" for instance.

tomasien 12y ago

The Uber driver app and orientation reinforce over and over that you must serve people with service dogs. Just FYI.

dfxm12 12y ago
Are the app and orientation the same if you drive a black car or UberX, or one of Uber's other services?

Agustus 12y ago

I am excited that more people can learn the crazy world of business compliance and its insanity, especially within the ADA compliance. What a great incentives lesson: * You have a business that wants to make sure that employee cars are in tip top condition. * You have an employee who wants to maintain tip-top condition. * You have a user who would like to board their service animal * There exists a certain percentage of service animals that their service animal status is for emotional stress and does not have an animal trained to the level of a blind user. These animals tear up a car, urinate within a car, etc. Witness the "service animals" on airplanes defecating and rerouting a plane. [1] Getting the "service animal" status entitles owners to a lot of benefits [2]. The owner does not want their car damaged by the "service animal" and lose the ability to provide services to future clients. The future clients will give bad ratings for the physical appearance of the car and take the owner's ability to work out of operation. If this issue was brought up by the taxi industry, I want to elect that person to the National Security Council, because this is a brilliant solution to bring down Uber. 1. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Dog-Poo-Forces-Philly-Bound-Flight-to-Make-Emergency-Landing-Report-261252191.html http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Dog-Poo-Forces-Phi... 2. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/08/03/fliers-scam-airlines-pets-service-dogs/13325733/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/08/03/flie...

imgabe 12y ago
I get that that's a concern for the driver, but that's a risk you take when you serve the public. Should the driver be allowed to refuse people with infants because the infant might throw up in the car or their diaper might leak? Should they be allowed to refuse drunk people? Sick people? Where does it stop? If you serve the public, serve all the public, or don't do it at all.
- Agustus 12y ago
  That's the fun of these service economy start-ups. When you run a hotel and a dog tears up the room, you can off set repair costs with a number of other profitable rooms. If you are the owner operator and your vehicle goes out of commission, what is the offset?

jasode 12y ago

The knee jerk reaction is to defend the rights of the disabled (blind people in this case) but I'd like to ask if there's any fair argument to be made for the drivers at all? For example, if an Uber driver has dog allergies[1], should blind service dogs override that? Should the blind person's right to mobility trump the driver's discomfort? The discomfort could also continue (shedding, dander) after the blind passenger has left the car. Would it be ok if Uber had an option for driver profiles for drivers to check "I have dog allergies." ? I'd anticipate the reaction to be "we shouldn't allow Uber to legally offer that option because every driver would check it to keep dogs out of their cars". I'm not sure if that would be true. Wouldn't there be a good percentage of drivers who would love to welcome dogs into their cars? I don't know. I'm not an Uber driver so I don't have any vested interest either way. Just curious what people think. Also, let's compare the situation to renting apartments or housing. It is illegal to disallow service dogs even if the landlord has a "no pets" policy. The law allows for the disabled have an exemption from such policies. But, the landlords also have an exemption from that exemption if the housing is owner-occupied.[2] In other words, the landlord can't prevent the service dog from living at the rental condo out on the beach but the landlord can prevent the dog from moving into an upstairs loft in his house. Presumably, most Uber drivers are driving their personal cars and not rotating the driving among a fleet of rental cars from the taxi corporation. Is there a parallel between renting owner-occupied housing and driving a personal car for money? Is there a parallel between Uber-to-personal_car and Airbnb-to-residential-home? Consider that a car is a much more intimate space than a house. [1] http://www.webmd.com/allergies/guide/dog-allergies http://www.webmd.com/allergies/guide/dog-allergies [2] https://www.airbnb.com/support/article/898?topic=273 https://www.airbnb.com/support/article/898?topic=273

LordKano 12y ago
I was just thinking this. I am allergic to animal dander. I can't be around cats, dogs or rabbits and the like without sneezing, wheezing and coughing. Why should someone else's disability take precedence over mine? Yes, I'm sure that some drivers would falsely claim to have an allergy just to keep animals out of their cars but some passengers would also lie about their pets being service animals just to get them in the vehicles.

dbg31415 12y ago

A few things: * Service animals aren't just dogs. Miniature horses, pigs, cats, whatever. Don't forget Emotional Support Animals. (Why are those important? Because they enable people with special needs / mental illness to function in "normal" situations.) * Uber drivers don't want animals in their personal cars, got it. But it's a choice to be an Uber driver, not a choice to be disabled or need an emotional support animal. When we think about this, we should think about who has the choice here. There's an easy fix. Default every Uber drive to accept all animals. Allow the Uber drivers to opt out, and in so doing lower their rank in search and have a badge next to their name, "Restrictions Apply" or something along those lines. Let their customers choose if they want to give money to people who are discriminatory. People with the disabilities shouldn't be forced to check a box or ask for special assistance, that's why you would default all drivers to accept pets and explain why it's important. Being able to provide a service to all users is important, but for fringe groups there isn't always an economic drive to do so. Like providing a seat belt, training with how to handle service animals should be mandatory. (The one driver put a service dog in the trunk?! Please tell me he isn't working at Uber any more.) Personal note: Ever tried to take a kid who has special needs to see the Grand Canyon? What started out as a dream trip was soured by people in hotels making a huge stink about Emotional Support Dogs, and reminding us at every turn that we had a special needs kid with us. People could have been kind, they could have pulled us aside, or read the notes from their boss that we were coming... but every time we hit a new hotel people would inevitably yell at my cousin, who has DS, because he would bring his dog with him to the lobby or near the pool, or even on a trail. "No pets allowed!" Even though we called ahead, the staff on the ground wasn't trained to deal with service animals. Without his dog, the world was a scary place form my cousin; Emotional Support Dogs are like hearing aids or canes or a pair of glasses that way. Anyway if you see someone who has a dog in a place you wouldn't normally expect to see a dog, please assume they have a good reason for it. You don't know how much damage you can do with one comment, or one harsh tone. We're all just trying to get through the day as best we can.

extra88 12y ago
No, only dogs and miniature horses are service animals under the ADA. FHA and Air Carrier Access Act include other animals but don't cover other forms of transit, which would include Uber. Also, "Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA."[1] I'm not familiar with the standards by which a dog or any other animal is determined to be a reasonable accommodation for a disability. I know they're not limited to physical impairments. [1] http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

dbg31415 12y ago

Australia is ahead of us here. http://www.news.com.au/national/taxi-driver-told-blind-woman-put-guide-dog-in-the-boot-or-get-out/story-e6frfkvr-1225867465241 http://www.news.com.au/national/taxi-driver-told-blind-woman... $740 AUD fine for refusing to transport a dog. Taxis in the US already face suspension of license if they refuse service animals in most states. Only fair Uber be held to the same standards.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

calciphus 12y ago

Interestingly, I've travelled around San Francisco with a friend with a seeing eye dog. Taxis would stop, look at us, and drive off. One yelled "no pets" at her as she tried to get in, and took his foot off the brake so the car rolled. At least with Uber you can go after the drivers and file complaints.