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

Quite simply it’s because the punishment has to be proportionate. If you fined McDonald’s $100 for burning the **** out of people with their coffee would they even give a ****? If you only fined Exxon $50 for spilling oil on the coast would they do anything to prevent it from happening again?

And yeah it might drive up costs for Uber. That might give another company a competitive edge. And it should.

 

It's discrimination against the blind person's dog. The blind do not absolutely need a dog. It's just a convenience to them.

 

by saying a Muslim must violate their religion an order to be on Uber then yes you did

As far as I can tell it wasn't discrimination against the blind it was discrimination against the dog. The ada I can't demand that you violate your religion that's illegal.

It'll be illegal no matter how many times you say the Ada can do it no they can't it's against the law.

 

Agree the punishment should be "proportionate". But proportionate to what? I think it should be proportionate the actual damage caused, not the size of the company.

I do not believe big companies should be punished more, just because you perceive they have deeper pockets.

 

There are also people that are allergic to dogs.

Requiring them to be in a car with the dog not only places them at risk no such place is the passenger at risk.

 

sure they can, uber drivers can not violate the ADA

 

That might be a slight exaggeration, but allergies are really awful.
What people don't get, those allergies will continue to last up to 24 hours later, even if that dog is gone.

 

then being an Uber driver is not the best job for them

if one is that allergic to dogs, even a pet owners cloths would affect them

 

I disagree. This is an artificially imposed thing.

You want to take away choice from people. Simply being able to find some other type of job is not always so easy. People who are an Uber driver aren't exactly the type of people who had a lot of other options in the first place, you know.

 

if your allergy makes your vision blurry or causes dizzy spells, allergies can absolutely do that then no it's not an exaggeration

Moral of the story is **** Uber, all they really are is an app to connect people with cars to people who need rides if they think they're entitled to your asset they need the old heav ho.

 

How is that not a violation of ADA or EEOC?

What Uber needs to do is put a little checkbox on the app I have a service animal and say what kind of animal it is. That way the people that can give them a ride can be found and the people you can't can be excluded from that.

All Uber is is an app they're nothing else driving passengers that all happens outside of uber if they can't get the app right they need to be fined that's all it is.

 

I already mentioned that as a suggestion, works for me

"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""

the driver needs to check a box if they do not accept service dogs, and then users can filter them out

 

They're not beholden to the ADA they're not a company. Uber is. And Uber gets the fine.

 

The issue is, if you take away rights, a little here and a little there, eventually it will be a very slippery slope.
It won't stop at just a small number of types of jobs.

It seems the Left is not in favor of standing up for the rights of the little working man anymore.

 

they are a private business, like a contractor

 

That's why they were forced to pay 1.1 million dollars because they were stupid.

Nothing happened to the drivers because nothing should.

 

no rights being taken away, don't get a job at a place that serves peanuts if you can't be around peanuts

 

No they're not. You're just a car owner that uses a platform.

 

Uber isn't a job It's a platform.

 

cause they are going after the bigger pockets as that is how change happens

 

you get paid, it's like a contractor

 

No it's because you can't go after somebody for not giving someone else a ride.

 

If you contract out to Uber Uber carries the liability.

This is why you cannot Sue an Uber driver for not having a wheelchair accessible van.

 

That could be a tricky grey zone. Yes, if it's a peanut factory, obviously not the place you should be. But if only 1% of the food items involve peanuts, maybe the company should try to make some reasonable concessions and accomodations.

Same thing in hospitals. I don't believe general nurses should be forced to assist with abortion procedures if they don't want to.

Neither should OB-GYNs be forced to perform hysterectomies on trans people just because they do hysterectomies in other cases where it is medically necessary.

 

the deal is between you and the passenger as well

if you speed, is Uber liable? they may be, but so are you....