Uber ordered to pay $1.1m to blind passenger who was denied rides 14 times

Uber ordered to pay $1.1m to blind passenger who was denied rides 14 times

I feel conflicted about this matter. I am allergic to pet dander so it would bother me to be in a vehicle where someone's pet/service animal had been so I understand why these Uber drivers would not want to provide her rides.

I also believe that she should have found alternate ways to get to work since it was clear that Uber drivers were in the habit of not being reliable. For that, I think she is the cause of her employment termination.

However, I also recognize her legal right to not be discriminated against. With that said, I think the judgment amount is excessively high (regardless of how much the attorneys will receive).

What do you think?

 

this is great news, sucks that people are discriminating against the blind based on their religious beliefs

people can believe whatever they want, just don't take a job if you can't do it... simple

either Uber allows the blind to pick drivers that do not have these religious beliefs, or they should keep being fined millions - Uber should make it clear when one requests a ride that the person refuses dogs based on their religious beliefs, in fact, Uber should allow you to filter out all these drivers, so they never show up on ones list

 

I am confused, if a taxi driver in Cornwall refused to take a blind passenger and guide dog they would probably have been run out of the county! And what has it got to do with religion?

 

it has a lot to do with religion sadly

 

Ok found some more information, looks like Uber take a different position in the UK,

A spokesman for Uber said: "It is totally unacceptable for drivers to refuse to take a guide dog and we investigate every report.

"Any driver who is found to have refused to take a service animal will permanently lose access to the app."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uber-driver-refuses-give-ride-21617668

Outrageous that anyone would refuse a guide dog on religious grounds, glad that in my country you will not get away with it.

 

Uber simply needs to offer the option on the app for a pet friendly service and then pay drivers extra for any willing to offer the service. There is no need to force drivers to do something they don't want.

 

I can never understand the settlement amounts in the US. Baffling.

 

Her settlement was for 364,000 dollars and over 800,000 in legal fees, its the amount that legal representation costs that baffles me!

 

Do you think that it is ok to discriminate against blind people because of their guide dogs?

 

ah, there's the explanation!

 

Uh...I couldn't find what "religion" it was that has "holy scriptures" against dogs....anybody?

 

Apparently it is Islam, they say dogs are an unclean animal, my thoughts are a blind human trumps an unclean animal every time. Glad to say that in the UK a guide dog is recognised as a mobility aid and whatever your religion is, you will be fined for discriminating against a disabled person.

 

but they don't want to do that or everyone could just filter out the dog haters and they would never get any rides

 

Christians deny cakes, Muslims deny blind people with guide dogs

 

yep, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the same in the USA, but still many violate it, it's pathetic and sad, like the blind needed one more issue in their lives

 

all drivers should have to follow the law, in the USA, the ADA does not allow one to deny service to the blind based on their guide dog

 

I know someone who could not take a guide dog and would have to have the vehicle professionally cleaned before entering it. Being in the presence of any dog is instantly life-threatening for him-he is highly allergic, and asthmatic.

 

guide dogs are allowed everywhere, it's the law, so guess your friend needs to live in a bubble, as in the USA, dogs are everywhere

though this is very very very rare for someone to be that allergic to a dog

 

It already happened once...code 3 ambulance ride and 2 days in the hospital.

 

Sounds like another example of excessive amounts of money awarded in a lawsuit, so common in the US.
They think it involves a big company, so they can punish the company by making it pay lots of money. Never mind about fairness.

It's despicable to deny a blind person a ride. But one also has to wonder if it really is the safest thing for a blind person to be using such a service, since these really aren't hired employees. Almost anyone could become an Uber driver and do so anonymously, if they wanted to. The blind passenger could easily get robbed or worse.

I personally would not allow a dog into my car if I were running an Uber service. Maybe the person with the dog should communicate on the phone with the Uber driver first about that.

Keep in mind that if you force people to accept a dog into their car, some of those people are just going to decide to stop offering Uber services altogether.

I also think a big part of this story is the government of California beginning to treat these sharing services as a company who hires employees, rather than independent contractors. This places additional legal obligations on the company for the employees and the employee's behavior. The state wants to exert more control, so it is holding the company responsible for the actions of the independent contractors.
But I do not think they were doing so in a fair way here. Under that business model it is difficult for the company Uber to control all the actions of the drivers.
But California, as has been demonstrated in the past, is very antagonistic against rideshare serves like Uber, trying to drive that business model out of business.

So I think there is more going on here behind just the issue of a blind passenger and a dog. There is a deeper issue going on. The state of California is setting all sorts of rules, "to prevent any form of discrimination" and exert control over big companies, and the business model of these sharing service companies do not allow them to do that, so the state wants to make it difficult for them.

One thing for sure, it's a very unfriendly business environment in that state in terms of the court system and people's attitudes. But they have lots of money so maybe they think they can afford to be that way.

 

Uber should be able to disclude service to animals, but if they do, they should advertise it. Ideally, some drivers would accomodate animals and others wouldn't, and when you order an uber, you would specify whether you require transport for an animal. I've never ordered an uber, but I imagine when you do, you specify for how many? Like, If I ordered an uber and it showed up and I had an extra person with me but they only had room for me, would that be my fault or theirs? OP seems the same as that to me.

 

I think there is a law in that state that makes it illegal to not accept guide dog animals in any publicly provided accommodation, including taxi cars.

But think about this, the next passenger who gets in that car might have an allergy to dogs.

The issue was, at that time there was no uber car available in that area that was willing to accept the dog.

Maybe the blind person should have called a regular taxi cab service, but that would have been three times as expensive. (And probably would have been considered to discriminatory in that area for a blind person with a service dog to have to pay more than regular people) I am guessing that blind person was relying on using Uber, was preparing for that, and wasn't able to look up the number for a regular taxi service.

 

Yes, that's correct. I've used Uber and Lyft. They ask about the number of people, adults and/or children and any personal assistive devices (walker, wheelchair, etc.). It's the same with medical transports except they usually provide a vehicle that has a locking device for wheelchairs.

 

Not necessarily. I've had some instances where a taxi was cheaper than Uber and Lyft. It just depends.

 

Just another example of outageously unfair rulings from courts and California creating a hostile environment for businesses to operate, by trying to punish them and keep them in a state of fear to try to exert control over them.

The mentality at play here is obviously to try to hold the big business responsible, thus forcing the big business to enforce the state's laws on its employees, and not allowing the independent contractor model where the employee is the one who the state would have to hold responsible.

Of course this will end up making costs higher for consumers, but most people are too stupid to realize that.

If employees had to put up with all the crazy laws the state imposes on business, there would be an immediate outcry.

It's unreasonable to require someone who is taking part in a ride share service to have to accept a dog in their car, even for a blind person, in my opinion. (and how do we even know? Someone could just pretend to be blind to be able to get their animal in the car)