Uber sued for (drivers) allegedly refusing rides to the blind and putting a dog in the trunk

[FrodosPet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/10/uber-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-rides-to-the-blind-and-putting-a-dog-in-the-trunk/

An advocacy group for the blind is suing the app-based ride-sharing service Uber, alleging the company discriminates against passengers with service dogs.

The federal civil rights suit filed Tuesday by the California chapter of the National Federation of the Blind cites instances in California and elsewhere when blind Uber customers summoned a car only to be refused a ride once the driver saw them with a service dog. In some cases, drivers allegedly abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather and charged cancellation fees after denying them rides, the complaint said.

The complaint filed in a Northern California District Court cites one instance where a California UberX driver put a service dog in the trunk and refused to pull over when the blind passenger realized where the animal was.

~ snip ~

Figuring out whether to treat Uber like a traditional taxi service or something else is the subject of heated debate across the country. Taxi services are required by federal law to serve the disabled, even if drivers are independent contractors.

[joeybee12]

1. Good...I keep hearing more and more about how awful this company is...

Sometimes a lawsuit is the only way d-bags will respond.

[MineralMan]

2. I would not use Uber or any other similar service.

Regular cabs are pricey, but they're regulated. Uber leaves you open to whatever the driver, in his or her own car, decides to do. Certainly, if I were blind and had a service dog, I would not use such a service under any circumstances. Too risky, altogether. I'm not riding with Libertarian Taxi Service. Sorry.

[Nye Bevan]

26. Uber drivers get kicked out if their average rating falls below 4 stars.

I have had some nasty experiences in crappy run-down vehicles belonging to the supposedly "regulated" services. And New York City taxis (again, supposedly subject to regulation) are well known for racial discrimination in deciding who to pick up. For white males like you and me this is not an issue, of course, but I could totally understand why a black person would prefer to book an Uber ride instead.

[Pisces]

3. Ha! Seems like a huge push out there to denigrate Uber. I wonder who is behind this propaganda?

I have used Uber and I have friends who exclusively use the service on business trips. It has never failed me or
them. Very convenient and easy to use. I am sure that the taxi industry would like nothing better than to see
Uber sued and close it's business model. The biggest Capitalist hate it when a capitalist idea works. Hmm.

[Gormy Cuss]

4. Right, it's all a big plot to make the unregulated "ride-sharing" services look bad.

Refusing rides to people who use service animals (never mind putting the service animal in the trunk) is an ADA violation that would land a cab company in hot water. A private individual can refuse to give anyone a ride. An independent contractor working for a taxi service can't. So the question becomes, why should the so-called ride sharing companies be exempt? They're not really "ride sharing" after all. They're cars for hire.

Ride sharing companies also aren't covered by the same liability coverage regs. When an Uber driver plowed into a child who was crossing legally in a crosswalk with her mother, Uber claimed they had no liability because the driver didn't have a passenger in his car even though the driver was on his way to pick one up. Had that happened with a cab, the company would have been liable and had the insurance to cover the claim.

You want to support a business like that, it's your capitalist right to do so.

[Pisces]

9. That was 1 car, not the business model.

[Gormy Cuss]

19. The fatality in San Francisco was part of the business model.

Uber contended that it had no liability in a situation where a regulated taxi service not only WOULD acknowledge liability, they'd have the mandated insurance coverage to address it.

I'd love to see these alt-livery services mainstreamed because app-based hailing and nicer cars is a great business model. However, livery services are regulated for good reasons and since none of these "ride sharing" services are actually that, it's time to add them to the regulated realm.

[Starry Messenger]

6. I guess you don't have any friends who are vision impaired.

[dilby]

7. Well the Taxi companies here in Portland regularly refuse service to people with Service Dogs

And have a tendency to kick lesbians out of their cars, so I don't think this issue is brought up by them.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. And those people have recourse, don't they. I heard about that one case, which ended with apologies

lawsuits and termination of employment. That story actually supports the need for regulation, doesn't it? That's what this story is actually about.
"PORTLAND — A Portland cab driver violated the rights of a lesbian couple he left on the side of a freeway last summer, state regulators said Tuesday.

The state Bureau of Labor and Industries said an investigator found substantial evidence the driver stopped providing service because of the couple’s sexual orientation.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/mar/04/state-cab-driver-violated-lesbian-couples-rights/

The guy lost his license.

[pnwmom]

22. That is a clear violation of the ADA. Someone should sue. n/t

[FrodosPet]

15. This is FAR bigger than Uber

They are one of many, in the transportation industry, the hospitality industry, retail...

This was more about blind passengers not getting the transportation service they desperately need. That is a hot button issue - especially since I am the poor guy who got dumped on by a passenger and a cop when a driver for my company would not pick up a blind passenger with a service dog because of his religion. WE as a company looked bad from one driver, one incident, when EVERY other driver I talked to said they would not disrespect someone like that.

Yes, I was livid - AT THE DRIVER - not the aftereffects. The aftereffects were a perfect wake up call, and now everyone is trained and signs an agreement that they WILL NOT disobey the laws about service animals. They know that it is a bad idea and they are going to catch as much hell as humanly possible - that we WILL give them up to be held personally accountable for violating the laws on service animals.

Unfortunately, you still see the stories about cab drivers, hotels, restaurants, etc who refuse service. It is messed up, and the people doing this must be made to pay the price - legally and economically.

But if we want to get specific about Uber: They are cutting driver takes to below survival levels. They are leaving them exposed in case of accidents. And what are they doing to ensure they are moving safe, inspected vehicles? Thinkaboutit - a full time car will roll 50,000 to 100,000 miles a year. Does Uber pay the owners enough to keep that car not only in gas, but in monthly oil changes, break pads, tires, and all the other ways cars can find to break?

[CreekDog]

27. obviously if you have had good luck with them, those blind people must be confused

what is wrong with people?

[Starry Messenger]

5. I just told this story about the dog in the trunk to my former-cabbie husband.

I've never seen him make that stunned face before.

Unregulated jitneys should have gone out with the 19th century, but here we are because FREEDUMB.

[Pisces]

10. You don't have to accept the ride. There is not a gun to your head. If someone tried to put my dog

in the trunk, I would tell them to fuck off. You make it sound as if the rider couldn't cancel the ride, and call a cab.
I am not advocating for the service, but I have used it and it worked out well for me.

[Starry Messenger]

12. Is that you, Ron Paul?

If an Uber driver refused to take a person who was not white, that person should just cancel the ride and go cheerfully about their day--call for another ride. Don't worry if they are trying to make a doctor appointment, a court date, or pick up their child from school.

It's a snap!

[Pisces]

16. I am not going to put my dog in the trunk and accept a ride to prove a point. Are you crazy.

I am not saying you shouldn't report the driver and make a complaint. Plenty of taxi drivers have done and said stupid
stuff. One drove away from me when he asked where I was going and refused to drive to the location. Shit happens. This is
one driver out of thousands, not a company policy.

1 bad driver does not encapsulate an entire company. Uber shouldn't exist, or this driver should be fired??

I think you are off base in your accusations against me.

[Starry Messenger]

17. I guess you missed the part of the article where it's happened

numerous times and also left the BLIND person abandoned and charged fake cancellation fees.

"The federal civil rights suit filed Tuesday by the California chapter of the National Federation of the Blind cites instances in California and elsewhere when blind Uber customers summoned a car only to be refused a ride once the driver saw them with a service dog. In some cases, drivers allegedly abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather and charged cancellation fees after denying them rides, the complaint said."

Note all the plurals.

Hey, you replied to me. You can cancel this ride and get out anytime you want.

[Pisces]

18. Again, I ask the question: Fire the bad drivers or close down a company? Seems you are advocating

for closing down an entire business because of some bad employees. This is not Ubers business model. It feels like
you have something personal against Uber.

[pnwmom]

23. You're the only one suggesting they close down UBER. People are saying UBER should follow the law

and its own stated policy, which accommodates service animals.

[Starry Messenger]

36. It seems like you have something personal against cabs.

See, I can make unfounded accusations too.

No one said ANYTHING about closing them down but you. We've all said REGULATE. And it is more than one driver, which I'm assuming you reread and are conceding at this point.

[FrodosPet]

25. You are carrying this to an extreme

The point is not that Uber should not exist, but that they should play by legitimate rules to protect public safety and accommodation.

They should REQUIRE, perhaps even PROVIDE commercial insurance that completely covers the driver at all times - not only while on a run, but posting and waiting and enroute and leaving the destination to re-post.

They should pay the drivers enough to live on AND to keep their vehicles well maintained.

If they do that, then I say "Go For It!". I do like the dispatch technology and the branding efforts.

[CreekDog]

28. so you're blaming the blind person for what the Uber driver did?

wow, your post get worse and worse.

[pnwmom]

13. The blind passenger didn't SEE the dog being put in the trunk. And one who did refuse

the ride was stranded in bad weather, and charged a cancellation fee!

[magical thyme]

11. I would sue anybody's ass for putting my dog in the truck of a car. That said,

I also would ensure they knew I was requesting a ride for myself *and my dog* prior to entering the agreement. Service dog or pet, they need to know it's not just a human passenger they are picking up. And I would ensure they agreed to have my dog ride with me in safety and comfort.

If they lied to me and proceeded to try to stick my dog in the trunk, unless I was going to be totally stranded, they wouldn't get very far because even if I couldn't see, I would expect my dog to be sitting with me where I could touch him or her and be certain of his/her presence. And I would let them know that in advance as well. I'd rather ride in the back seat with my dog next to me, than have me up front and dog alone in the back.

So I'm on the fence with this. A ride sharing service is great, but unregulated. Which means users need to be pro-active about certain things. Along with the dog, if I had a lot of luggage, I would let that be known up front. What if they don't have room for your steamer trunk?

Those things need to be worked out in advance in any agreement. Moreso in an unregulated, personal agreement.

[pnwmom]

14. People with disability dogs aren't required to get prior approval. Other people are required to

accommodate them.

A guide dog isn't equivalent to a trunk. Any vehicle with space for a couple passengers has space for a guide dog. And people have been stranded, in bad weather -- and even charged cancellation fees!

"In some cases, drivers allegedly abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather and charged cancellation fees after denying them rides, the complaint said."

[FrodosPet]

21. This is truth

On a personal basis, as far as I am concerned, if someone does not like cats or dogs, they have some major issues with life in general. But they have the right to like and dislike whatever they want.

They do NOT have the right to seek employment or business opportunities in public accommodation if they are not going to accommodate the public in its entirety.

[pnwmom]

20. The ADA requires all private businesses that serve the public, including UBER,

to accomodate service animals.

UBER even has a written policy on that. Here is a link to a discussion page connected to UBER. Someone has linked to UBER's written policy there -- it's not readable unless you're a member. Someone else has also posted the ADA regulations that apply. There is also a discussion of the fact that Muslims think dogs are unclean and have been known to ban them from their vehicles.

http://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-notice-regarding-service-animals.569/

I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?

A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service.

[Nye Bevan]

24. In 1999 Danny Glover filed a taxi discrimination claim in New York City....

In 1999, actor Danny Glover made headlines by filing a taxi discrimination claim in New York City, noting that cabs failed to stop for him due to the color of his skin. Good Morning America experimented with having a black man and a white man hail cabs again in 2009 and found that the racial profiling still continued. In 2010, Fernando Mateo, head of the New York State Federation of Cab Drivers, encouraged racial profiling in the name of safety. Though it has been over a decade since Danny Glover made the issue a national conversation, the landscape hasn’t changed much.

As a black woman, I am generally seen as less of a threat than my black male peers. But that doesn’t mean my business is encouraged or wanted.I stopped using DC cabs back in 2003, when they were using zoning practices that ensured every time I stepped into a cab I wouldn’t get out for less than $25.00, even if I was just going ten minutes down the street. As I learned DC better, I figured out all the routes serviced by buses and trains and committed to walking the rest. The addition of a bike share program to DC has almost completely eliminated my need for a cab rides. A few years later, I repeated the process in New York and Boston, having learned the hard way that I could not count on getting a cab if I needed one, no matter how I was dressed or where I was going.

http://www.racialicious.com/2012/11/28/cab-drivers-uber-and-the-costs-of-racism/

So much for the "regulated" traditional taxi services. I haven't heard any stories of Uber refusing rides to people based upon their race.

[NYC_SKP]

29. ADA and allergies to dog dander. Interesting paradox.

I don't think it's been well established for the transportation industry.

IMO, Uber has to follow ADA, but where conflicting interests exist, it's unclear what to do with cabs.

Restaurants have similar issues but I believe it's been pretty well settled.

[FrodosPet]

30. Same conflict with religion

It's not the exclusive reason, but a very major one.

What is more important - religious liberty vs the rights and needs of the disabled?

Personally, I vote for the disabled. The driver can find a different gig. The disabled person usually has no options.

[NYC_SKP]

31. I agree with you. Religion shouldn't give one an affirmative right over another's rights.

Not in this case.

If a person's religion is such that they object to being around dogs, they should consider a different vocation, IMO.

At least as it applies to service dogs.

[pnwmom]

32. It has been well established for the transportation industry.

The language of the ADA is very clear.

And it makes sense, too. People can take pills for allergies, but they can't take a pill to stop being blind.

Uber has a written policy that is in line with the ADA.

From the US Department of Justice:

http://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-notice-regarding-service-animals.569/

COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT
SERVICE ANIMALS IN PLACES OF BUSINESS

1. Q: What are the laws that apply to my business?

A: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.

SNIP

8. Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?

A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service.

[NYC_SKP]

33. Smell and shed and accidents are a different matter....

I know you have personal experience, but even if it's settled, it remains a paradox.

Rental cars are allowed the same policy, no dogs unless they are hypoallergenic.

[pnwmom]

37. It was someone responding to me who had personal experience.

I am actually a person with animal allergies, but if I were serving the public in any capacity, I would have to deal with it.

Rental car agencies aren't allowed to ban or otherwise limit service dogs. Why do you think they are?

[NYC_SKP]

38. I didn't say service dogs, I said they can disallow or charge additional fees for dogs, period.

I don't have a service dog, so can't attest to what they do with respect to them.

Can a no-pet hotel be required to accept guests with service dogs, without a pet fee?

I don't know. I think they should accept without fee.

But I still feel sympathy for sufferers of allergies.

Hopefully, they would have rooms that are reserved or more commonly used for dogs, and other rooms for the allergic.

[pnwmom]

39. They CANNOT. Service dogs or other service animals must be allowed without any extra fee.

The first link was from a settlement between Budget Rent a Car and the government, requiring Budget to follow the terms of the ADA.

http://www.ada.gov/budget.htm

12. Budget shall allow persons with disabilities the use of service animals under the ADA, including guide dogs, signal dogs, or other animals individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Budget shall not require people with disabilities to provide any type of identification or certification of an animal as having been trained as a service animal. Budget shall not require persons with disabilities to be separated from their service animals at any time.

http://www.autorentalnews.com/blog/auto-focus/story/2013/09/service-dogs-and-car-rental.aspx


Service Animals. If a disabled customer uses a service animal, the Rental Company must make certain accommodations. A “service animal” is a dog that is trained to perform tasks on behalf of persons with disabilities. If a customer has a service animal, the following rules apply:

(1) Employees may ask only two questions: (a) Is the dog a service animal? and (b) What service does the dog perform? Employees may not request documentation to prove that the animal is a service animal or require a demonstration of the dog’s services.
(2) Allergies or fear of animals is not a reason to deny access to the Rental Company office or refuse a rental.
(3) A Rental Company may not ask a customer to remove a service animal from the premises, unless the animal is out of control or not housebroken.
(4) If the Rental Company normally charges a pet deposit, that deposit must be waived for service animals.
(5) The Rental Company may charge the renter for damage to the rental agency or rental vehicle caused by the service animal.

[Gormy Cuss]

34. The company is required to make reasonable accommodations for both.

That may mean screening their drivers in advance to flag those who have legitimate limitations and having some system to alert customers BEFORE the driver is assigned.

[NYC_SKP]

35. This is my understanding of it, that's the policy for, say, classrooms or offices.

However taxis are a bit different.

Does a single owner operator have to find an accommodation for a person suffering allergies, or, alternatively, refuse carrying guide dogs that aren't dander-free?

It would be easier for a fleet operator to make accommodations, harder for a one-car operation.

[pnwmom]

40. The US Justice department statement specifically addressed private taxi cabs

and said that they, too, were bound by the ADA.

[NYC_SKP]

41. Yes, I've read it. It's still a paradox between different people under ADA. (nt)

[pnwmom]

42. Does the ADA cover allergies? I wasn't aware of that.

I think that would be almost impossible to manage, with all the allergies that are out there.

[NYC_SKP]

43. Yes, it does. Difficult to manage, you betcha!

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.

In public schools where policies and practices do not comply with Section 504, the ADA should stimulate significant changes. In contrast, the ADA will cause few changes in schools where students have reliable access to medication, options for physical education, and classrooms that are free of allergens and irritants.

http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=9&sub=19&cont=255

Here's a case regarding food allergies: http://www.ada.gov/lapetite.htm

It's really tricky, too, as there seem to be more and more sufferers of allergic reactions, peanuts, pets, foods, etc., and no sign of it getting easier to manage.