Blind users with service animals: Uber refuses to serve us

Company is accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Read the whole story

 

[Netguru]

This kind of crap is why this country is going to hell in a basket. We are a private company so laws don't apply to us... What? Unreal.

It seems to me that somehow we as a society have taken basic human kindness and threw it out a window. When a person can treat a handicapped person with nothing but disdain for needing some extra help, we need to examine our core beliefs. Just another day in la la land..../r

Edit: another /rant

 

[ChickenHawk]

Netguru[/url]":buycgcd2]This kind of crap is why this country is going to hell in a basket. We are a private company so laws don't apply to us... What? Unreal.

Thats Uber's SOP. Laws and standards do not apply to it. Making them comply with the same rules that everyone else does is apparently unfair to them.

 

[MojoSlim]

Well, I suppose it could have been worse... the driver could have put the blind woman in the trunk too.

In all seriousness, Uber is the perfect example of the arrogance of a certain part of the tech sector. There is an idea that "because computers/internet" the laws that were written over the past century or so shouldn't apply. Worse... rather than act as other companies might and actually move to change the laws, Uber just violates existing law and essentially throws down a challenge to the government to actually enforce the law. After all, Uber is disrupting traditional industries that are required to serve those pesky disabled people and they wouldn't be able to make money if they had to serve people equally.

If nothing else, their assertion that the law does not apply because they are a private company should be the last straw that gets you to cancel your account with them.

 

[krimhorn]

ChickenHawk[/url]":v0xaq3rh]

Netguru[/url]":v0xaq3rh]This kind of crap is why this country is going to hell in a basket. We are a private company so laws don't apply to us... What? Unreal.

Thats Uber's SOP. Laws and standards do not apply to it. Making them comply with the same rules that everyone else does is apparently unfair to them.

We'll come in and "disrupt" your business models and your laws!

 

[Rabbiddog]

Netguru[/url]"u4ec2ui]This kind of crap is why this country is going to hell in a basket. We are a private company so laws don't apply to us... What? Unreal.

It seems to me that somehow we as a society have taken basic human kindness and threw it out a window. When a person can treat a handicapped person with nothing but disdain for needing some extra help, we need to examine our core beliefs. Just another day in la la land..../r

Edit: another /rant

It's not just "this country". It happens all over the world.

 

[Buffy]

I'm severely sight impaired and have a guide dog. I would rather take my chances hitch-hiking than use Uber.

 

[Ostracus]

Came for the picture (AWWW!), stayed for the story.

 

[norikitakino]

Wait, they shoved her dog in the trunk and refused to let her get it out, yet the blind users have no standing?

Ridiculous.

EDIT: Cleared up vague phrasing.

 

[ebbv]

Stormspace[/url]":2hk0svn1]I suspect those drivers are first generation citizens or h1b holders. I've seen a blatant disregard for laws like these from indian workers in the US. Charging restocking fees on items not ordered, stocking expired food and not issuing refunds when caught, and pointing customers to expired items instead of those in date. These are all just a few examples I've personally experienced and can go on as I've quite a few more examples.

Erm, ignoring the blatant racism/xenophobia of your comment, it's still an irrelevant argument. Because Uber as a company is fighting this. It's not just rogue drivers acting like douchebags.

 

[Thomas Harte]

Netguru[/url]":15zek6zh]This kind of crap is why this country is going to hell in a basket. We are a private company so laws don't apply to us... What? Unreal.

In the UK we have the Human Rights Act ('HRA') which states merely that public bodies — courts, police, government actors, etc — must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR'). However, in Douglas v Hello, the plaintiff successfully argued that if courts must follow the ECHR then that means they must interpret common law in light of it where possible. Therefore the HRA ends up having influence between non-public bodies.

I don't know the ADA but would dare imagine it could be used similarly if necessary since the real, practical reality of it is that otherwise a judge would have to declare that Uber can legally discriminate.

 

[puppies]

This is one company that is desperately in need of legal smack-down. An example must be made. Too many companies try to "disrupt" their way around consumer protection or labor laws.

 

[captainadamo]

In 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—an argument that United States Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins found did not hold water.

Did any of Uber's lawyers ever even read the ADA? Title III explicitly covers them:

Q. Are there any ADA requirements for private transportation?
The ADA's Title III provision requires private transportation businesses to provide readily accessible vehicles for individuals with disabilities. Private transportation services include airport shuttles, hotel shuttles, private buses, and taxis. In addition, Title III requires these services to provide readily accessible facilities, such as private bus stops and depots.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimi ... t-ada.html

And, yes, despite their claims of being a "ride sharing company" anyone with half a brain knows that Uber is trying to run itself as an unregulated taxi company and private taxi companies still have to abide by the ADA. If the ADA didn't apply to "private companies" it would basically have little to no teeth so their argument is absurd.

 

[citizencoyote]

Stormspace[/url]":1obd18ee]I suspect those drivers are first generation citizens or h1b holders. I've seen a blatant disregard for laws like these from indian workers in the US. Charging restocking fees on items not ordered, stocking expired food and not issuing refunds when caught, and pointing customers to expired items instead of those in date. These are all just a few examples I've personally experienced and can go on as I've quite a few more examples.

Ignoring the racist undertones of your post, their immigration status is irrelevant. If Uber drivers are ignorant of the law, it is Uber's responsibility to educate them. The fact that Uber doesn't seem to care about ADA is pretty damn appalling, but sadly seems par for the course for the company based on what I've read over the past year or so. Doesn't mean they can ignore the law.

 

[ebbv]

Thomas Harte[/url]":27nrl4eg]
I don't know the ADA but would dare imagine it could be used similarly if necessary since the real, practical reality of it is that otherwise a judge would have to declare that Uber can legally discriminate.

The ADA has always applied to private companies, so Uber's just a bunch of assholes like usual.

 

[ebbv]

Duplicate post on accident. So I will use this one to say that Daredevil didn't have a guide dog but he probably should have. Dogs are great.

 

[corrupted223]

I would rather walk than subject my service dog to something like that. I hope they get smacked down hard.

 

[Jon Ghast]

Stormspace[/url]":1bv34y3b]I suspect those drivers are first generation citizens or h1b holders. I've seen a blatant disregard for laws like these from indian workers in the US. Charging restocking fees on items not ordered, stocking expired food and not issuing refunds when caught, and pointing customers to expired items instead of those in date. These are all just a few examples I've personally experienced and can go on as I've quite a few more examples.

And Stormfront comes to Ars.

 

[Pillage]

I could see the argument that people in wheelchairs have no standing, but blind people?

... I'll see myself out.

 

[David Crowell]

WTF? What's the big deal about allowing a dog in the car - especially when it's required by law. Carry a freakin' brush to remove the hair when you've dropped off your passenger.

I can understand a few isolated incidents, but this almost seems that Uber is telling their drivers they can get away with this.

 

[dragonlord]

I think the problem is that a lot of people are scared of dogs. I would figure that it's these people that are being rude, obnoxious, and refusing service to blind travellers rather than those that don't mind dogs. We recently had an incident in the UK where a blind woman was kicked out of a Tesco because she was walking around with her guide dog doing her shopping. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/te ... 00495.html . This was clearly against the law in this country but it still happened. I'm pretty sure that this is what's happening with Uber.

 

[sheepless]

dragonlord[/url]":2tfo6263]I think the problem is that a lot of people are scared of dogs. I would figure that it's these people that are being rude, obnoxious, and refusing service to blind travellers rather than those that don't mind dogs. We recently had an incident in the UK where a blind woman was kicked out of a Tesco because she was walking around with her guide dog doing her shopping. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/te ... 00495.html . This was clearly against the law in this country but it still happened. I'm pretty sure that this is what's happening with Uber.

And it that's the case, then Uber's response should be "sorry about that, shouldn't have happened, we'll ensure that all our drivers understand their responsibilities to blind and partially-sighted customers and their service animals". But they didn't do that. What does that tell you about the company?

 

[nehinks]

Clarification - I thought the company was called Uber, but the complaint keeps mentioning UberX. Why?

 

[sheepless]

Time for an organised boycott of Uber by fully-sighted people, in solidarity?

 

[David Crowell]

sheepless[/url]":2ihmw5nw]Time for an organised boycott of Uber by fully-sighted people, in solidarity?

Lyft and Uber came to my town at the same time. I've stuck with Lyft.

 

[Power_Struggle]

The biggest shortsightedness in this story: not with the visually impaired.
Why would a taxi service alienate people who don't drive cars? Disabled people seem to be the perfect customers.

 

[arsReader47]

Despite how horrendous the situation, how awesome must that service dog be to allow someone who is not their charge to *shove them in the trunk* and not bite their face off? Service dogs are amazing, anyone who is discriminating against people who have them is just plain stupid.

 

[psd]

Netguru[/url]":16a94e3x]This kind of crap is why this country is going to hell in a basket. We are a private company so laws don't apply to us... What? Unreal.

It seems to me that somehow we as a society have taken basic human kindness and threw it out a window. When a person can treat a handicapped person with nothing but disdain for needing some extra help, we need to examine our core beliefs. Just another day in la la land..../r

Edit: another /rant

Yeah, I will join you in this rant to add what is really going to to take the US, from my vantage point, to hell in a hand basket is this resurgence of "religious freedom" attitude among businesses. How's that for irony.




(to hell in a hand basket because of "religious freedom")

 

[Bernd]

nehinks[/url]":28j2rp2y]Clarification - I thought the company was called Uber, but the complaint keeps mentioning UberX. Why?

From what I understand UberX is the high end brand for Uber. Better/larger vehicles if I understand it correctly.

 

[Midnitte]

In 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—an argument that United States Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins found did not hold water.

I'm glad (and surprised) the judge didn't buy this argument.

Those with disabilities shouldn't be left behind or denied service just because of their disability.

 

[nehinks]

First off, the reported incidents sound awful. The one guy at least should seriously be fired. Second, how do taxis deal with service dogs - are all taxis required to take them? I'm wondering about when a driver has severe allergies to dogs - can they call in somebody else instead? The person being picked up shouldn't care which particular vehicle/driver is picking them up, just that it happens.

Perhaps drivers could be rated/certified as pet/dog friendly?

 

[remyporter]

If you offer a transportation to the service, it's a public accommodation. Since you need an account to access the Uber service, they can try and claim that it's a "members only" service, but since anybody can create an account, that'll get laughed out of court.

 

[robrob]

Bernd[/url]":3u584y07]

nehinks[/url]":3u584y07]Clarification - I thought the company was called Uber, but the complaint keeps mentioning UberX. Why?

From what I understand UberX is the high end brand for Uber. Better/larger vehicles if I understand it correctly.

The opposite, UberX is their dingdong with a car, the ones Uber claims absolutely no responsibility for and thus can charge the lowest prices. Uber (called "Uber Black" in most places) is the standard, usually with a nicer car and is actually accredited.

 

[puppies]

nehinks[/url]":3tmdz6pm]Clarification - I thought the company was called Uber, but the complaint keeps mentioning UberX. Why?

Uber breaks it down by the types of vehicles. That way you can have some idea of the type car you'll be getting (and pay appropriately). UberX is the basic service, but there's also UberBlack or UberXL for a nicer or larger vehicle respectively.



Here is a breakdown
http://www.driveubernyc.com/cars/