Blind users with service animals: Uber refuses to serve us

Company is accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Read the whole story

 

[s73v3r]

spaulagain[/url]":28b9dulo]

Mitlov[/url]":28b9dulo]

spaulagain[/url]":28b9dulo]

Mitlov[/url]":28b9dulo]

spaulagain[/url]":28b9dulo]

nehinks[/url]":28b9dulo]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?

Exactly, I think people need to consider the other sides perspective as well. Unlike normal Taxis, Uber drivers are using their personal vehicle to facilitate this public transportation service. They may be allergic to dogs, or they may fear they will destroy/scratch up the inside of the car, etc.

I think Uber should step up in this case and make it where users declare they have a dog in their profile, and then the app just sets up a ride with a driver willing to accept dogs.

Everyone griping about the fact that a private company is trying to break the law, or requirements of the law is also completely ignoring that Uber is a little different. While it is a company, it's drivers are individuals. Individuals that use their own personal vehicle that is not paid for by the company.

I have a right to not allow dogs in my house. But if I host a "public" party, should I be forced to let dogs in? Not exactly the same idea, but I think for the drivers it feels that way.

Uber and its drivers made their bed when they structured a taxi service around personal vehicles instead of company-owned vehicles. Now they get to lie in it.

The ADA does not have a "but I really don't like dogs on things I own" exception for service animals. Not for restaurant proprietors and not for taxi drivers.

If you use your personal house for something that is defined as a "public accommodation"--say, by operating a B&B--yes, you have to allow service animals. Don't want to? Don't operate a public accommodation.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have drivers that do accept it, I'm just saying I can kind of see why some may not want to.

The whole "they made their bed" attitude is pretty immature IMO. Uber has created a new niche in the industry that hasn't exactly laid out all the rules yet. Uber certainly hasn't been good at staying on top of things, but I also think they are trying their hardest to refrain from becoming an actual Taxi company, as doing so completely destroys the original intent of their business model.

Is the niche defined as "a taxi company that really doesn't want to play by taxi company rules"?

Yes, because that's the whole point. Obviously there was demand in the market for something different/better than the status quo "standards" in a Taxi service, otherwise Uber (and others) wouldn't be doing so well and taken off in the market. Both drivers and riders are into this concept, that's why it's working in the market.

While many of the "rules" that impact the traditional Taxi industry should apply to Uber, it's also true that Uber is DIFFERENT. Therefore there are going to be some hiccups as the kinks get worked out. From the sounds of it, Uber already has the ADA compliance part in their policy, and this was more just a case of bad drivers. Which BTW, there are bad drivers in the traditional Taxi services out there as well.

But I find it weird how many people on here are so gung hoe about destroying what makes Uber different and successful, the fact that it "isn't" a traditional Taxi service. In this case because these are personal vehicles, some people might have allergies, etc. the rules might have to be applied differently. Like requiring Uber to just make sure they have drivers that are capable of taking in dogs, etc.

This isn't as black and white as you and others seem to think it is.

This is as black and white as everyone is thinking. Just because you want to use your personal car as a taxi means absolutely jack shit; you still have to comply with the law. Don't like it? Don't use your personal car as a taxi. End of Story.

 

[SgtCupCake]

I think the plaintiffs have a case if and only if they can prove that Uber had this issue and they choose to do nothing about it.

Ex: If it is Uber's company policy to serve people with guide dogs and one or more drivers refused, then it would be their responsibility to fire them those drive–same with if they received reports about this issue for an existing driver. Since Uber drivers are largely autonomous, I don't see how it is reasonable to expect Uber to know about these instances unless they were reported.

 

[Chuckstar]

SgtCupCake[/url]":tgyzjsf8]I think the plaintiffs have a case if and only if they can prove that Uber had this issue and they choose to do nothing about it.

Ex: If it is Uber's company policy to serve people with guide dogs and one or more drivers refused, then it would be their responsibility to fire them those drive–same with if they received reports about this issue for an existing driver. Since Uber drivers are largely autonomous, I don't see how it is reasonable to expect Uber to know about these instances unless they were reported.

Uber runs a business where you request a car from Uber, it arrives and takes you somewhere, then at the end you pay Uber. How Uber chooses to organize its business from there doesn't change its responsibility to make sure that business is operating within the law. Nor does it eliminate Uber's liability if the business is not operating within the law.

 

[SgtCupCake]

Chuckstar[/url]":4vfsndzn]

SgtCupCake[/url]":4vfsndzn]I think the plaintiffs have a case if and only if they can prove that Uber had this issue and they choose to do nothing about it.

Ex: If it is Uber's company policy to serve people with guide dogs and one or more drivers refused, then it would be their responsibility to fire them those drive–same with if they received reports about this issue for an existing driver. Since Uber drivers are largely autonomous, I don't see how it is reasonable to expect Uber to know about these instances unless they were reported.

Uber runs a business where you request a car from Uber, it arrives and takes you somewhere, then at the end you pay Uber. How Uber chooses to organize its business from there doesn't change its responsibility to make sure that business is operating within the law. Nor does it eliminate Uber's liability if the business is not operating within the law.

My point was more towards wanting to see the two parties work it out, instead of dragging the courts through this, especially if Uber had no prior knowledge that its drivers were doing this. But I do get that that is how some people like to solve their problems, its like a little child crying to mommy that they don't get their way. You should only involve mommy if you can't work it out with the other child and have at least tried.

 

[Null_Space]

Nilt[/url]":2rkywj03]

gordon942[/url]":2rkywj03]The service dog is essentially an extension of the person themselves - an external sensory organ, if you will. Someone's basic ability to navigate and function in the world should never be something that is granted them only when they carry a piece of paper. Should we also require wheelchair users to carry around a wheelchair permit at all times?

Exactly this. Well said.

We require them to do so to park in disabled spaces.

 

[cbreak]

Sounds like Uber is still the shitiest taxi company imaginable. Why people still pay for this kind of service is beyond me. And such a blatant disregard of law... probably best to just cancel their corporate permit.

 

[carldjennings]

Has it been determined whether or not drivers are independent contractors? If they are, wouldn't the driver have to be sued, and not Uber?

 

[ElCameron]

sep332[/url]":38jbj7ve]This article could really use some clarification about why Uber thinks the plaintiffs don't have standing. According to Uber, they just coordinate the rides. Each driver is an independent contractor who provides the actual ride to the passenger. So, according to Uber, this is a series of isolated cases where individual passengers were harassed by individual drivers. There is no "class" for a class action, and each driver should be sued instead of Uber.

I don't think Uber's statement really works though. In the architectural sector courts have found that both property owners and the tenants that lease their space share joint responsibility for ADA compliance. Furthermore, courts have often found that you can't indemnify yourself against negligent acts, such as violating ADA requirements. So uber can't just say "hey this is a contractor problem." In fact, under their thinking it would mean that every uber driver has to provide accessible transportation or the drivers can be sued, (meaning uber will have to provide an option or their drivers will dry up pretty quick). This will be an interesting case to follow.

IMHO, Uber will lose this and have to set aside a x% of their fleet to be accessible (including vehicles with wheel chair lifts). This is no different than opening a store without an accessible route. You just can't do it. In fact in Texas you can't get a building permit without a state level accessibility review. (something more states should follow)

 

[ElCameron]

carldjennings[/url]":n1hi60jd]Has it been determined whether or not drivers are independent contractors? If they are, wouldn't the driver have to be sued, and not Uber?

Many court cases have found that everyone involved in any violation of ADA shares responsibility on some level. (Think property owners and building tenants, A tenant may build an in-accessible building on some leased land, but that doesn't mean that the owner isn't responsible.) Usually a suit will balance costs between multiple parties, e.g. the property owner might have to pay to make the route accessible to the store entrance, while the tenant might have to provide for accessibility inside the space.

You can also guarantee that Uber will have to put up for some accessible transport, or their drivers are going to dry up pretty quick. Who would take that risk? You might answer an Uber and someone is in an electric wheel chair that you can't transport. Guess what? Lawsuit on your hands.

 

[Nilt]

Null_Space[/url]":1n4ywx2b]

Nilt[/url]":1n4ywx2b]

gordon942[/url]":1n4ywx2b]The service dog is essentially an extension of the person themselves - an external sensory organ, if you will. Someone's basic ability to navigate and function in the world should never be something that is granted them only when they carry a piece of paper. Should we also require wheelchair users to carry around a wheelchair permit at all times?

Exactly this. Well said.

We require them to do so to park in disabled spaces.

That's got nothing at all to do with this. I have a permit to park in such spaces and yet have no wheelchair. All you need is a specific disability or limitation attested to by a physician. It's pretty straightforward and those spaces need a permit or they'd be hogged up by al the jackholes who just think the rules don't apply to them. Huh, kind of like Uber!

 

[deletefromcommentswhere1=1]

ADA explicitly states that allergies or fear of dogs is not a valid reason to deny services. As an Uber driver, you legally must comply with the ADA regulations. It is part of your job description. If your allergies are severe enough to exclude you from complying with federal law on the job, then you should find a new job.

I like how you are using a law designed to ensure people could function in society to prevent people from functioning in society.

From the Allergy and Asthma Foundation:

Does the ADA Apply to People with Asthma and Allergies?
Yes. In both the ADA and Section 504, a person with a disability is described as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or is regarded as having such impairments. Breathing, eating, working and going to school are "major life activities." Asthma and allergies are still considered disabilities under the ADA, even if symptoms are controlled by medication.

The ADA can help people with asthma and allergies obtain safer, healthier environments where they work, shop, eat and go to school. The ADA also affects employment policies. For example, a private preschool can not refuse to enroll children because giving medication to or adapting snacks for students with allergies requires special staff training or because insurance rates might go up. A firm can not refuse to hire an otherwise qualified person solely because of the potential time or insurance needs of a family member.

If a service dog can go anywhere (restaurant, office, cab) what job is safe for a person with severe dander allergies?

There have been so many times in my life where people don't take allergies serious. I can't tell you how many people have said (behind my back, because nobody has the balls to say it to my face) things such as "Just because he can't eat peanuts doesn't mean we should not have any. I love peanut butter. He should just stay at home and quit restricting my freedom."

And here you are doing the exact same thing. Screw me and my allergies, because that isn't actually a disability, right? I could just stay at home and work as a medical billing clerk, right?

Using the ADA to tell me to get a different job due to my allergies. Well played sir, well played.

 

[ElCameron]

SgtCupCake[/url]":30orhl8a]I think the plaintiffs have a case if and only if they can prove that Uber had this issue and they choose to do nothing about it.

That's not how ADA law works. You can't violate someone else's right to access a service. The violation of their rights is not refusing to make the changes, but an act of negligence to the 1990 ADA law on the part of the driver/uber.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Null_Space[/url]":2y12iu60]

Nilt[/url]":2y12iu60]

gordon942[/url]":2y12iu60]The service dog is essentially an extension of the person themselves - an external sensory organ, if you will. Someone's basic ability to navigate and function in the world should never be something that is granted them only when they carry a piece of paper. Should we also require wheelchair users to carry around a wheelchair permit at all times?

Exactly this. Well said.

We require them to do so to park in disabled spaces.

That is different as they're leaving there property there and there was until recently no immediate way to determine eligibility to use that space. (I was going to say no, but there's no reason why we couldnt have a database where all cars in those spaces have their registration checked...)

 

[ElCameron]

SgtCupCake[/url]":1gi1l4tl]

My point was more towards wanting to see the two parties work it out, instead of dragging the courts through this, especially if Uber had no prior knowledge that its drivers were doing this. But I do get that that is how some people like to solve their problems, its like a little child crying to mommy that they don't get their way. You should only involve mommy if you can't work it out with the other child and have at least tried.

I actually think this is fantastic example of when a lawsuit is warranted. It will clearly establish a precedent for responsibility ($$) in regard to providing accessible services for ridesharing and other (maybe un-thought of yet) businesses. This isn't about what the drivers did, this is about Uber/driver not providing accessibility per the ADA.

I'm all for tort reform and cutting down on frivolous lawsuits, but this isn't one of them. My disappointment is that this suit wasn't brought by the justice department first. (Which it should have)

 

[SgtCupCake]

d5280[/url]":2nujutar]

SgtCupCake[/url]":2nujutar]I think the plaintiffs have a case if and only if they can prove that Uber had this issue and they choose to do nothing about it.

That's not how ADA law works. You can't violate someone else's right to access a service. The violation of their rights is not refusing to make the changes, but an act of negligence to the 1990 ADA law on the part of the driver/uber.

Thanks, I get that now. I have no love or interest in Uber. Just playing a little Devil's advocate and expressing personal views. I have no problem holding a company responsible when they break the law, I just wish issues like these could be settled out of court if possible. I am also not clear that Uber knew that they had this problem, in which case I also believe that people(and companies) deserve the courtesy/opportunity of making their mistakes right again without government coercion.

 

[ElCameron]

Null_Space[/url]":3jg6g5u8]

Nilt[/url]":3jg6g5u8]

gordon942[/url]":3jg6g5u8]The service dog is essentially an extension of the person themselves - an external sensory organ, if you will. Someone's basic ability to navigate and function in the world should never be something that is granted them only when they carry a piece of paper. Should we also require wheelchair users to carry around a wheelchair permit at all times?

Exactly this. Well said.

We require them to do so to park in disabled spaces.

Service animal are required to be restrained. (although this can include voice commands, but in all my years or working with the blind i've never run into a service dog that isn't in a harness or leash). They do not however have to wear vests or carry identification per federal laws. State laws can vary. Although it is pretty well understood and taught that if you have a service dog, you carry your paperwork with you at all times.

for more info: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

 

[nom3ramy]

A shedding drooling dog sitting on a car seat after not using toilet paper can certainly cause cleanup problems.

Couldn't Uber rates just include a dog fee addition to cover the average cost of cleanup?

If most guide dogs are well-behaved, this average fee over a large number of samples may be minimal but realistic.

 

[ElCameron]

SgtCupCake[/url]":138c0fbc]

d5280[/url]":138c0fbc]

SgtCupCake[/url]":138c0fbc]I think the plaintiffs have a case if and only if they can prove that Uber had this issue and they choose to do nothing about it.

That's not how ADA law works. You can't violate someone else's right to access a service. The violation of their rights is not refusing to make the changes, but an act of negligence to the 1990 ADA law on the part of the driver/uber.

Thanks, I get that now. I have no love or interest in Uber. Just playing a little Devil's advocate and expressing personal views. I have no problem holding a company responsible when they break the law, I just wish issues like these could be settled out of court if possible. I am also not clear that Uber knew that they had this problem, in which case I also believe that people(and companies) deserve the courtesy/opportunity of making their mistakes right again without government coercion.

I hear what you are saying. But while it is would be great for companies to be able to say "whoops my bad" and rectify the problem that isn't always possible. For example, if we don't have an accessible route when we design a building, it can become very expensive if not impossible to add one later due to physical constraints. One example I can think of is a business that tried to install a wheel chair lift in the stairs that also functioned as the only fire exit. As a result we had to go in an provide another egress as the lift in operation would block the egress path. So therefore, accessibility must be accommodated BEFORE it is needed. I've also had my fair share of people who just don't care. (I've wanted to make them be blind for a day!) As an architect I have to deal with ADA law on literally a daily basis as it is ingrained in absolutely everything we do. (On top of ADA, we have FHA & ANSI 117.1 to deal with!) So it isn't impossible to get right.

I also think this has the potential to be an important court case as far as precedent and assigning culpability for future businesses.

 

[ElCameron]

nom3ramy[/url]":1oxi3cmm]A shedding drooling dog sitting on a car seat after not using toilet paper can certainly cause cleanup problems.

Couldn't Uber rates just include a dog fee addition to cover the average cost of cleanup?

If most guide dogs are well-behaved, this average fee over a large number of samples may be minimal but realistic.

Nope. see: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

They can charge the owner for damage resulting from the animal, just as they could charge the owner if the person broke a window. But only if that process is the same for people without disabilities.

Let's keep in mind here we aren't talking about dogs, but service animals. They have (are supposed to have) pretty strict training and serve a specific need for their owners. These aren't just an animal from a pet store. They have often been trained for years to do specific tasks with the owner.

Note: the 2010 ADA limited service animals to both dogs and miniature horses (??? anybody have one in the atlanta area? I'd love to see them in action!)

 

[SgtCupCake]

d5280[/url]":36e7gdnp]

SgtCupCake[/url]":36e7gdnp]

d5280[/url]":36e7gdnp]

SgtCupCake[/url]":36e7gdnp]I think the plaintiffs have a case if and only if they can prove that Uber had this issue and they choose to do nothing about it.

That's not how ADA law works. You can't violate someone else's right to access a service. The violation of their rights is not refusing to make the changes, but an act of negligence to the 1990 ADA law on the part of the driver/uber.

Thanks, I get that now. I have no love or interest in Uber. Just playing a little Devil's advocate and expressing personal views. I have no problem holding a company responsible when they break the law, I just wish issues like these could be settled out of court if possible. I am also not clear that Uber knew that they had this problem, in which case I also believe that people(and companies) deserve the courtesy/opportunity of making their mistakes right again without government coercion.

I hear what you are saying. But while it is would be great for companies to be able to say "whoops my bad" and rectify the problem that isn't always possible. For example, if we don't have an accessible route when we design a building, it can become very expensive if not impossible to add one later due to physical constraints. One example I can think of is a business that tried to install a wheel chair lift in the stairs that also functioned as the only fire exit. As a result we had to go in an provide another egress as the lift in operation would block the egress path. So therefore, accessibility must be accommodated BEFORE it is needed. I've also had my fair share of people who just don't care. (I've wanted to make them be blind for a day!) As an architect I have to deal with ADA law on literally a daily basis as it is ingrained in absolutely everything we do. (On top of ADA, we have FHA & ANSI 117.1 to deal with!) So it isn't impossible to get right.

I also think this has the potential to be an important court case as far as precedent and assigning culpability for future businesses.

This makes sense. I think a lot of people(including myself) tend to take things for granted. Its not out of malice that we don't tend to do more to accommodate the handicapped, its just typically not something we think about that often. I guess when I look at Uber, that's what I see.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Null_Space]

d5280[/url]":83y5kf4j]

Null_Space[/url]":83y5kf4j]

Nilt[/url]":83y5kf4j]

gordon942[/url]":83y5kf4j]The service dog is essentially an extension of the person themselves - an external sensory organ, if you will. Someone's basic ability to navigate and function in the world should never be something that is granted them only when they carry a piece of paper. Should we also require wheelchair users to carry around a wheelchair permit at all times?

Exactly this. Well said.

We require them to do so to park in disabled spaces.

Service animal are required to be restrained. (although this can include voice commands, but in all my years or working with the blind i've never run into a service dog that isn't in a harness or leash). They do not however have to wear vests or carry identification per federal laws. State laws can vary. Although it is pretty well understood and taught that if you have a service dog, you carry your paperwork with you at all times.

for more info: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

Right, but the question wasn't what the law was now, it's what _should_ be done.

I can't presume to speak for the disabled, but I would hope that those who need handicapped accessible spaces understand and appreciate that requiring placards/plates makes sure that those accommodations are available to them (and not being taken by assholes).

Similarly, documentation about service animals (if it were to be required, though it's not currently) would ensure that the accommodation is only used by those that require the animals. Which actually does _help_ the disabled.

Right now, literally any asshole can say "oh, my dog is a service animal" and walk into the business. And the business can't stop them. Which means that you can end up with uncontrolled and untrained animals in an enclosed space with the actual trained service animals, causing troubles and possibly trying to start fights, etc.

 

[ElCameron]

SgtCupCake[/url]"]
This makes sense. I think a lot of people(including myself) tend to take things for granted. Its not out of malice that we don't tend to do more to accommodate the handicapped, its just typically not something we think about that often. I guess when I look at Uber, that's what I see.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out.[/quote

I agree. I didn't / don't attribute it to malice or really ignorance when I encounter it. (unless someone flat out says "screw those wheel chair people!" or refuses to learn / consult a professional).

I actually think this is a good example of the weird history of the law. It was created an an extension of civil rights law not as construction code (International Building Code for example). This is due to us not having a uniform national building code (or a means of applying one). So it has some weird applications. It makes a lot of sense in my example to be pre-emptive as being unable to access a space can have life threatening issues (think stairs before a fire access door). But in a case like this, the cost of retro-fitting is relatively low (attach wheel chair holders to car hitches, policy changes, etc.) and I'm hard pressed to think of a life threatening situation. So to me this is more an example of the law's intention of preventing issues in really difficult situations kind of applying backwards to a relative simple situation.

 

[nom3ramy]

d5280[/url]":30hrszv5]

nom3ramy[/url]":30hrszv5]A shedding drooling dog sitting on a car seat after not using toilet paper can certainly cause cleanup problems.

Couldn't Uber rates just include a dog fee addition to cover the average cost of cleanup?

If most guide dogs are well-behaved, this average fee over a large number of samples may be minimal but realistic.

Nope. see: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

They can charge the owner for damage resulting from the animal, just as they could charge the owner if the person broke a window. But only if that process is the same for people without disabilities.

That document seems to specify only that a "service animal" must be allowed to accompany the disabled person requiring it. It says nothing about including a realistic fee to cover the average cost of cleanup after such animals.

 

[HLSstudent]

Netguru[/url]":2r0929tq]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

The article is incorrect. Uber did not argue that they are a private company and thus they are exempt from the governing law that Plaintiffs allege in their claim. Uber argued they are not within the scope of the law because they are not a "public accommodation." Click the link for the Judge's denial of the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to see Uber's exact argument. I am not an expert in this field of law, but I know that "public accommodation" as defined by the law can include private establishments. Uber simply argued they are not one of those private establishments, which they certainly have the right to do.

 

[Deleted member 441963]

ChickenHawk[/url]":2l3kiamy]
Thats Uber's SOP.

Let's nuke Uber from LEO. Only way to be sure!

 

[taswyn]

nom3ramy[/url]":1jtapp1j]

d5280[/url]":1jtapp1j]

nom3ramy[/url]":1jtapp1j]A shedding drooling dog sitting on a car seat after not using toilet paper can certainly cause cleanup problems.

Couldn't Uber rates just include a dog fee addition to cover the average cost of cleanup?

If most guide dogs are well-behaved, this average fee over a large number of samples may be minimal but realistic.

Nope. see: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

They can charge the owner for damage resulting from the animal, just as they could charge the owner if the person broke a window. But only if that process is the same for people without disabilities.

That document seems to specify only that a "service animal" must be allowed to accompany the disabled person requiring it. It says nothing about including a realistic fee to cover the average cost of cleanup after such animals.

That would be absolutely illegal under the ADA.

Under the ADA, when such a fee is even allowed, it must be directly tied to a specific incident, not just a general one meant to average costs.

 

[ElCameron]

Null_Space[/url]":37pcb7o6]

Right, but the question wasn't what the law was now, it's what _should_ be done.

I can't presume to speak for the disabled, but I would hope that those who need handicapped accessible spaces understand and appreciate that requiring placards/plates makes sure that those accommodations are available to them (and not being taken by assholes).

Similarly, documentation about service animals (if it were to be required, though it's not currently) would ensure that the accommodation is only used by those that require the animals. Which actually does _help_ the disabled.

Right now, literally any asshole can say "oh, my dog is a service animal" and walk into the business. And the business can't stop them. Which means that you can end up with uncontrolled and untrained animals in an enclosed space with the actual trained service animals, causing troubles and possibly trying to start fights, etc.

Service animals are regulated beyond federal law at both state and local levels, so there very well may be required documentation in some areas. This can also include health / food service laws as they will often detail exemptions for service animals in restaurants etc. Just because there is a federal regulation doesn't mean there isn't a local one. Consult a lawyer if you have questions.

Federal law does require the animal to be constrained and does allow for the animal to be removed if is causing disturbances. And while I can think of good examples of people gaming the system (Lewis Hamilton for one: http://assistance-dog-aware.co.uk/2014/ ... tance-dog/ ) I can think of literally hundreds of people I know who rely on and benefit from their service animals. Just as we have jerks who won't pickup blind people we have jerks that will use laws not intended for their own benefit.

 

[tbone43068]

I've read this before on Uberpeople and as an Uber driver this practice disgusts me. I would never treat anyone like that and a dog is more than welcome in vehicle.

 

[Null_Space]

d5280[/url]":1by0ur7l]

Null_Space[/url]":1by0ur7l]

Right, but the question wasn't what the law was now, it's what _should_ be done.

I can't presume to speak for the disabled, but I would hope that those who need handicapped accessible spaces understand and appreciate that requiring placards/plates makes sure that those accommodations are available to them (and not being taken by assholes).

Similarly, documentation about service animals (if it were to be required, though it's not currently) would ensure that the accommodation is only used by those that require the animals. Which actually does _help_ the disabled.

Right now, literally any asshole can say "oh, my dog is a service animal" and walk into the business. And the business can't stop them. Which means that you can end up with uncontrolled and untrained animals in an enclosed space with the actual trained service animals, causing troubles and possibly trying to start fights, etc.

Service animals are regulated beyond federal law at both state and local levels, so there very well may be required documentation in some areas. This can also include health / food service laws as they will often detail exemptions for service animals in restaurants etc. Just because there is a federal regulation doesn't mean there isn't a local one. Consult a lawyer if you have questions.

Federal law does require the animal to be constrained and does allow for the animal to be removed if is causing disturbances. And while I can think of good examples of people gaming the system (Lewis Hamilton for one: http://assistance-dog-aware.co.uk/2014/ ... tance-dog/ ) I can think of literally hundreds of people I know who rely on and benefit from their service animals. Just as we have jerks who won't pickup blind people we have jerks that will use laws not intended for their own benefit.

The link you provided above says that you can't ask for documentation. If federal law says you can't ask, how could a state/local law allow you to? Federal trumps state/local.

That link also says that state/local health food service laws _don't_ apply.

 

[parasyte]

nom3ramy[/url]":2rqfwyj8]

d5280[/url]":2rqfwyj8]

nom3ramy[/url]":2rqfwyj8]A shedding drooling dog sitting on a car seat after not using toilet paper can certainly cause cleanup problems.

Couldn't Uber rates just include a dog fee addition to cover the average cost of cleanup?

If most guide dogs are well-behaved, this average fee over a large number of samples may be minimal but realistic.

Nope. see: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

They can charge the owner for damage resulting from the animal, just as they could charge the owner if the person broke a window. But only if that process is the same for people without disabilities.

That document seems to specify only that a "service animal" must be allowed to accompany the disabled person requiring it. It says nothing about including a realistic fee to cover the average cost of cleanup after such animals.

You seem to have missed this very important bullet point:

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.

Yes, the document does say things about including a realistic fee to cover the average cost of cleanup - it says they are specifically disallowed, and pet fees must be waived if they exist.. The only fees allowed are "charges for damage caused by [the customer] or his service animal", if the business normally charges customers for such damage.

 

[Nilt]

deletefromcommentswhere1=1[/url]":35at8lbn]If a service dog can go anywhere (restaurant, office, cab) what job is safe for a person with severe dander allergies?

This can be an issue, to be sure. The fact, however, is that such allergies are rarely, if ever, anaphylactic. It's a very tiny chance, so not a huge issue. It would be interesting to see a case fully litigated, however.

There have been so many times in my life where people don't take allergies serious. I can't tell you how many people have said (behind my back, because nobody has the balls to say it to my face) things such as "Just because he can't eat peanuts doesn't mean we should not have any. I love peanut butter. He should just stay at home and quit restricting my freedom."

And here you are doing the exact same thing. Screw me and my allergies, because that isn't actually a disability, right? I could just stay at home and work as a medical billing clerk, right?

Look, I get it. My 11yo is off the charts sensitive to peanuts and all tree nuts. It's a massive hassle when you get folks like that. Thing is, though, they're sort of right. Bear with me. It's up to an allergy sufferer to know how to keep themselves safe in the real world. You have no idea if someone in the mall had peanut butter before touching that pair of shoes. You can't know if the last person to open a door was munching on cashews at the same time, leaving an invisible trace of deadly poison for you and others on the knob. Now, that doesn't mean they should be able to put you at risk deliberately.

The attitude, really, is because of the media's trivializing the severity and a lack of general awareness of how severe this really is. We deal with this a fair amount with our kid when school events are planned, etc. Most of the kids are fine; it's the parents who get pissy and roll their eyes. The kids, though, who respect the safety of their peer, keep them in line. I heard one little girl scold her mother just outside a door once, saying she doesn't want her friend to get hurt and nuts just aren't that big a deal to have all the time. So don't get too discouraged; attitudes are changing slowly.

Using the ADA to tell me to get a different job due to my allergies. Well played sir, well played.

Now here's where the issue is complex. The ADA overrides many local laws and the conditions aren't optional. We currently do not have case law to determine what winds when an employee's safety is put at risk. This must change but it needs someone with standing to push it all the way first. Most don't have the wherewithal for that kind of fight. Most of the time, the ADA can be dealt with by having a different employee handle the situation. If someone, however, were allergic to dander in a way which caused anaphylaxis would you advocate that they should get a job as a pet groomer? Of course not! While it might be an issue if a service dog came in, that's very rare and quite likely to be easy enough to work around. The employee regulations are more about reasonable accommodation than anything else. This is not the case with the ADA. It's an area where the law isn't perfect. It sucks, sure, but it's honestly rare. Now, if someone had a service peanut plant, we'd probably see some real action on it. Until then, not so much.

Seriously, though, keep your chin up. I know how difficult it can be to deal with the allergy. I've seen my son scared to play in places before. I've heard the comments of the uninformed and just those of the downright cold hearted assholes. I get it.

 

[gordon942]

Null_Space[/url]":24yj0m7r]

Nilt[/url]":24yj0m7r]

gordon942[/url]":24yj0m7r]The service dog is essentially an extension of the person themselves - an external sensory organ, if you will. Someone's basic ability to navigate and function in the world should never be something that is granted them only when they carry a piece of paper. Should we also require wheelchair users to carry around a wheelchair permit at all times?

Exactly this. Well said.

We require them to do so to park in disabled spaces.

I figured someone would bring this up. I think the primary difference here is that disabled parking spaces are a highly finite resource, and even a small number of people abusing them would make them perpetually unavailable for the people who need them. Someone bringing a fake service animal into a business doesn't prevent someone else from bringing in a real one.

 

[Vipre77]

How do other taxi services handle this and why can't Uber do the same thing?

I understand why they wouldn't want dogs in the cars. Allergen concerns, soiling the seats for subsequent passengers, torn upholstery from untrimmed claws. A simple brush job may not be enough to address allergens. My daughter is allergic to dog hair, dander, saliva, or other oils from their skin or fur, so there's all of those potential allergens that need to be dealt with. Being in contact with cloth that has been in contact with most dog breeds and hasn't been thoroughly washed causes her skin to break out in rashes and swelling in facial areas. From my perspective, my kid has just as much right to the taxi as a blind person and their dog does, so who wins this argument?

Do they need to reserve a portion of their vehicles as blind/dog friendly and simply require that those be requested when ordering a pickup? Subaru Outback and Foresters are great vehicle choices for this type of service with factory options that are dog friendly for the rear cargo areas. Solves the problem for both the blind and for people like my daughter.

 

[nom3ramy]

parasyte[/url]":1wa5q86j]

nom3ramy[/url]":1wa5q86j]

d5280[/url]":1wa5q86j]

nom3ramy[/url]":1wa5q86j]A shedding drooling dog sitting on a car seat after not using toilet paper can certainly cause cleanup problems.

Couldn't Uber rates just include a dog fee addition to cover the average cost of cleanup?

If most guide dogs are well-behaved, this average fee over a large number of samples may be minimal but realistic.

Nope. see: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

They can charge the owner for damage resulting from the animal, just as they could charge the owner if the person broke a window. But only if that process is the same for people without disabilities.

That document seems to specify only that a "service animal" must be allowed to accompany the disabled person requiring it. It says nothing about including a realistic fee to cover the average cost of cleanup after such animals.

You seem to have missed this very important bullet point:

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.

Yes, the document does say things about including a realistic fee to cover the average cost of cleanup - it says they are specifically disallowed, and pet fees must be waived if they exist.. The only fees allowed are "charges for damage caused by [the customer] or his service animal", if the business normally charges customers for such damage.

I did, and you are correct about the rule.

This leaves a business with the imposed need to raise all rates to cover the cost of cleanup for a subset of customers.

It creates a special problem for independent drivers of personal cars, who do not have the large base of customers to absorb the cost that can result from one episode of a fouled private car to be cleaned before the next use. Without a separate fee to cover the risk and inconvenience, they will often tend to avoid the problem in any way possible.

 

[Romberry]

nom3ramy[/url]":2frcb5cx]

parasyte[/url]":2frcb5cx]

nom3ramy[/url]":2frcb5cx]

d5280[/url]":2frcb5cx]

nom3ramy[/url]":2frcb5cx]A shedding drooling dog sitting on a car seat after not using toilet paper can certainly cause cleanup problems.

Couldn't Uber rates just include a dog fee addition to cover the average cost of cleanup?

If most guide dogs are well-behaved, this average fee over a large number of samples may be minimal but realistic.

Nope. see: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

They can charge the owner for damage resulting from the animal, just as they could charge the owner if the person broke a window. But only if that process is the same for people without disabilities.

That document seems to specify only that a "service animal" must be allowed to accompany the disabled person requiring it. It says nothing about including a realistic fee to cover the average cost of cleanup after such animals.

You seem to have missed this very important bullet point:

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.

Yes, the document does say things about including a realistic fee to cover the average cost of cleanup - it says they are specifically disallowed, and pet fees must be waived if they exist.. The only fees allowed are "charges for damage caused by [the customer] or his service animal", if the business normally charges customers for such damage.

I did, and you are correct about the rule.

This leaves a business with the imposed need to raise all rates to cover the cost of cleanup for a subset of customers.

It creates a special problem for independent drivers of personal cars...<snip>

Once you hire yourself out as a driver, it's no longer just a personal car, it's part of your business...even if your business is as an independent contractor.

Why is it that so many of the new so-called "tech business models" (Look! We have an app!) are built on saying we're exceptions to just about everything and essentially making fun of established businesses in established markets for playing by the rules and understanding that the compliance with the law is a cost of doing business? Isn't it just the entire model really just seeking to lower costs and make a profit by saying we're exceptions and don't have to bear those costs? Yeah...screw that.

 

[Zarsus]

Wat?

First it says the law doesn't apply to it:

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

And then it says it says shit like this:

We remain confident in the facts surrounding this case. The Uber app is built to expand access to transportation options for all, including users with visual impairments and other disabilities. It is Uber’s policy that driver partners are expected to comply with local, state and federal laws regarding the transportation of service animals, and we have consistently communicated this policy to drivers nationwide.

Not only are they assholes, but they are lying assholes with zero remorse.

 

[BlaineThePaine]

ebbv[/url]":23g59nm9]

Stormspace[/url]":23g59nm9]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.

Perhaps a fair comment, though I wish most people would understand that culture is not race. How many people pointing out cultural differences have to be labeled racist when they in fact don't give a shit about race at all. Can we please stop throwing this word naively around until there's proof of actual racism.

Until proof of actual racism, I would say his comment has "culturist" undertones and leave it at that.

Edit: Must be the true racists out there down voting me. My apologies for inadvertently labeling some of you as "culturists".

 

[ChickenHawk]

nom3ramy[/url]":29j819np]A shedding drooling dog sitting on a car seat after not using toilet paper can certainly cause cleanup problems.

Couldn't Uber rates just include a dog fee addition to cover the average cost of cleanup?

If most guide dogs are well-behaved, this average fee over a large number of samples may be minimal but realistic.

Only for a pet, not for a guide dog.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Zarsus[/url]":2y64ghkd]Wat?

First it says the law doesn't apply to it:

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

And then it says it says shit like this:

We remain confident in the facts surrounding this case. The Uber app is built to expand access to transportation options for all, including users with visual impairments and other disabilities. It is Uber’s policy that driver partners are expected to comply with local, state and federal laws regarding the transportation of service animals, and we have consistently communicated this policy to drivers nationwide.

Not only are they assholes, but they are lying assholes with zero remorse.

I skim-read their argument on PACER, I'm not sure where the "Private company" argument comes from, from what I remember seeing they argued they werent a place of public accomodation.

 

[ChickenHawk]

burne_[/url]":1ky5c4x2]

ChickenHawk[/url]":1ky5c4x2]
Thats Uber's SOP.

Let's nuke Uber from LEO. Only way to be sure!

Orbital Cow Launcher ready to fire on your command.