Uber driver refuses ride to blind man, service dog

[FrodosPet]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-driver-refuses-ride-blind-man-service-dog/

CBS/AP July 7, 2016, 11:05 AM

ORLANDO, Fla. -- An Uber driver in Florida was arrested after deputies say he refused to transport a group of blind people and their service dogs.

CBS Orlando affiliate WKMG-TV reports Simon Pierre Andre Nau was picking up Robert Stigile, who's blind, and other blind people in Stigile's group Monday night in Orlando.

Stigile says that when Nau, 60, showed up, he said, "I don't take dogs." Stigile explained the dogs were service animals and Nau allegedly replied "I don't care."

~ snip ~

Deputies say Nau laughed about the incident as if he "didn't fully understand that he had broken the law." It's unclear if Nau has an attorney.

THis is a big issue in the taxi and rideshare industries. Who's rights are superior - the blind person who needs the transportation, or the driver who may have allergies or religious objections?
[hr]
http://uberpeople.net/threads/ada-wars-pax-service-animal-vs-my-allergies.74244/

I have violent allergies to pet dander, confirmed via blood tests. It's not just my opinion - I have lab work to back it up.

Uber says I have to accept service animals, and in California - I'm guessing (with some good odds) it's illegal effectively to question anyone who claims an animal to be a service animal. Obviously, at some point a pax will not want me to cancel them out and claim it's a service animal regardless.

So - who wins here? My ADA rights as a driver, or pax's ADA rights as a passenger?

I feel I should have an ADA right to refuse the pax. The pax is inconvenienced less, as they can get another Uber within minutes... whereas my car will be contaminated with pet dander - leaving me in a position where sneezing could make driving unsafe (for me and for future pax too).

~ snip ~

[niyad]

1. sorry, the second bit does not apply, since nowhere in the linked article is there ANY

indication that nau had allergies.

and the protocols for uber are clear, as posted in the second linked article.

[MADem]

2. Also, no one has a "right" to be an UBER driver.

If a person can't mitigate their allergies to perform the job, they probably should look for a driving opportunity that doesn't involve people and service dogs--like driving a grocery van.

If you are in a wheelchair, you are not qualified to join the military. If you can't fit through the doorway or down the aisle, you can't be a flight attendant. Some jobs require an ability to lift heavy packages--if you can't do that, those jobs are not for you.

Job requirements are job requirements--and not fulfilling a key aspect of the job -- transporting people who most need transport, the blind--means a person is unsuited to that particular job, and there is no "reasonable accommodation" that can mitigate it. Of course, allergy medications/shots, etc., work, but a lot of people would rather live with their allergies that submit to a program of desensitization.

[FrodosPet]

3. Perhaps I should have seperated the articles

Personally, I support the needs and rights of the disabled to have service animals. Then again, I am privileged in many ways. I am a midwestern American, raised with dogs and cats, and lacking health issues with them. I have no religious objections, and I tend to prefer their company to humans.

But for others, having a dog in the same car is a traumatic experience. Even a well-cared-for dog is GOING to shed.

IDK where this driver comes from in terms of why he would not transport the dog. My first impulse was to be mad and disgusted. But do I really have the right to be?

[niyad]

6. whatever that driver's objections, the protocol is clear. another driver is contacted, and the

first driver WAITS with the client until the second driver arrives. it doesn't matter what issues nau had, he did not observe protocols. and, since nowhere does it indicate that he mentioned allergies, who, indeed, knows. or cares, since he violated company policy.

[gratuitous]

4. It's almost like Uber isn't a full service service, you know?

By the way, if you don't have the app, good luck trying to contact Uber and make a complaint. You can't e-mail Uber, you can't write to them, you can't contact them through their website. Weird, huh? Almost like they don't want to hear any complaints from folks who observe their drivers making turns without signaling, or blocking traffic lanes while letting off passengers (instead of pulling over to the curb).

[niyad]

5. you make a very interesting point. it is, indeed, weird that there is no way to contact them

other than the app.