# The Service Dog Issue is so easy to resolve.



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.

Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.

never again will there need to be a problem.

Is there a SINGLE market where there are not TOO MANY drivers already? Pulling a few out of the mix for a ride they don't want is a simple fix.

Riders will willingly identify on their account their need and happily enjoy rides forward. Drivers will show up prepared as well as willing to transport them.

What do you have left? Trouble making riders simply out to exert control on people that want nothing to do with them and the Drivers that have either legitimate reasons, i.e. allergies, fears, etc.... or preferences to not be involved with them

Someone please get Rohit on the fix.... Put me down as willing to transport....


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.
> 
> Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.
> 
> ...


One little problem, allowing drivers to opt out of taking service animals violates the law.


----------



## UberLyftFlexWhatever (Nov 23, 2018)

CTK said:


> One little problem, allowing drivers to opt out of taking service animals violates the law.


Allow me to reiterate,

*IT'S THE LAW *

*Period *

If u don't want to follow the ADA Laws
there are available positions in janitorial & food services, parking lot attendant,
movie theater ticket collector and retail stocking assistants.
ALL with set time shifts and management supervision


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Someone please get Rohit on the fix.... Put me down as willing to transport....


Hello,

I have updated your account accordingly.

RESOLVED

Regards,
Rohit


----------



## mmn (Oct 23, 2015)

So, no exception for those allergic to dogs?


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

It's a preemptive move to match special needs passengers with available drivers willing to accommodate their needs. There is no law broken when UBER matches a passenger with a driver that does not deny them.

Armchair Lawyers are no better than arm chair coaches.

Some of you are simply here to argue and try to incite...
I guess you missed the part where I have no problem driving them.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

mmn said:


> So, no exception for those allergic to dogs?


No, not legally, Michael.



JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.
> 
> Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.
> 
> ...


I see your point, JTMF. I don't think it would fly because and of course, it would cost money and inconvenience the end consumers.

Then there is the "Not at my counter" thing. It would be I have a prejudice against this customer. But the next driver doesn't so send them there" If there is no other next driver, U/L has effectively broken the ADA law. And they do not play with that one for a second.

I really do see your point but would open them up to liability. They wouldn't even consider it.

And as always, it's not their car and they are not real concerned with us to begin with.


----------



## Sarticus (Dec 20, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.
> 
> Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.
> 
> Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.
> 
> ...


The service dog "issue" is WAY simpler than this illegal nonsense.

*Obey the law*...which has been the law for decades, incidentally.
*Drive the dog.*
*RESOLVED.*


----------



## AnotherUberGuy (Oct 26, 2018)

My issue is when folks bring their random mutt into the car and claim, "This is my service dog." There must be something we can do about this issue.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

AnotherUberGuy said:


> My issue is when folks bring their random mutt into the car and claim, "This is my service dog." There must be something we can do about this issue.


As much as we can do about the people being supported by the government because "they can't work".


----------



## DustyToad (Jan 10, 2018)

Dog hair all over my interior = $150 cleaning fee.
I don’t discriminate. You make a mess, you pay. 

They’re all equal to me. 
If I dont put in for the cleaning fee I feel like I am treating them differently then someone without a service animal.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

CTK said:


> One little problem, allowing drivers to opt out of taking service animals violates the law.


This is what stops me from selling cocaine to riders in Miami

There are some people that have a big issue with this and I like to call them the cops

If you ever wonder why you get bombarded with messages about service dogs from lyft and uber, its because of threads like this every week lol


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

AnotherUberGuy said:


> My issue is when folks bring their random mutt into the car and claim, "This is my service dog." There must be something we can do about this issue.


As it has been pointed out repeatedly .... IT'S THE LAW.
The only thing that you can do, if you want to, is CHANGE THE LAW.

You are a citizen (I assume) so therefore you have the right to take steps to change the law.
Do it.

Until then ... It IS the law.


----------



## DavronYu (Sep 4, 2017)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.
> 
> Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.
> 
> ...


Then nobody going to pick up service animals


----------



## UberLyftFlexWhatever (Nov 23, 2018)

DavronYu said:


> Then nobody going to pick up service animals


Simple

A. Plenty of Drivers will enthusiastically comply with ADA laws
B. Those that don't : deactivation


----------



## R1d1qls (Nov 21, 2018)

I guess I need to keep my epi pen in the car. Extremely allergic to cats. Dont mind dogs but would Lyft/Uber be willing to pay for cleaning all the hair up. Had been going to the same vet for 18+ years with our dogs and recently switched so I can walk the dogs to the vet and not have to spend time cleaning all the hair up.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.
> 
> Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.
> 
> ...


If driver had the ability guarantee no dogs, service or otherwise, most drivers would opt out.

If a non service dog pax can get a ride in 3 minutes while a service animal takes 12, that's service discrimination and against the law. The ADA is intended to make sure those with disabilities receive the same level and speed of service as anyone else, any delay created due to their disability is discrimination, regardless of how little of a delay it is. No way for uber to guarantee that there would be NO service delays implimenting this system you recommend.

Theyre the ones that'll have to pay millions in fines and settlements, they aint gonnna risk that for you.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> It's a preemptive move to match special needs passengers with available drivers willing to accommodate their needs. There is no law broken when UBER matches a passenger with a driver that does not deny them.
> 
> Armchair Lawyers are no better than arm chair coaches.
> 
> ...


"Willing" being the operative word.

You are not allowed to discriminate just because you feel like it.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

mmn said:


> So, no exception for those allergic to dogs?


ADA makes no exception. Take a chill pill and take the dog or find a new job.



AnotherUberGuy said:


> My issue is when folks bring their random mutt into the car and claim, "This is my service dog." There must be something we can do about this issue.


There is: ask the two questions. If they fail, most do, then you dont take the dog.



R1d1qls said:


> I guess I need to keep my epi pen in the car. Extremely allergic to cats. Dont mind dogs but would Lyft/Uber be willing to pay for cleaning all the hair up. Had been going to the same vet for 18+ years with our dogs and recently switched so I can walk the dogs to the vet and not have to spend time cleaning all the hair up.


Cats are not service animals. They cannot be.

Yes, file for a cleaning fee every ttime . ive heard many drivers get the fee, worst they can say is no.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

R1d1qls said:


> I guess I need to keep my epi pen in the car. Extremely allergic to cats.


If you are severely allergic to cats (or anything else) to the degree that you need an epipen, YES you should keep it in your car. And on your person is much better than in the glovebox.

In fact, you should carry two, because they only give temporary relief and respiratory arrest would be inconvenient.


----------



## R1d1qls (Nov 21, 2018)

There are now people claiming all kinds of animals as service animals. In reality, its more like "comfort" animals but as long as this new generation complains about anxiety issues, then they will continue to claim whatever kind of animal they want as service animals. My daughter has a friend what has a damn hedgehog as his "service animal". Is there an actual list of what Lyft/Uber claim to be considered service animals?



JimKE said:


> If you are severely allergic to cats (or anything else) to the degree that you need an epipen, YES you should keep it in your car. And on your person is much better than in the glovebox.
> 
> In fact, you should carry two, because they only give temporary relief and respiratory arrest would be inconvenient.


I keep it in my work bag but I occasionally leave it at work with my laptop if I worked late at night.

AHH, emotional support animal is what I was thinking of. Alot of people now try to claim those as service animals.


----------



## UberLyftFlexWhatever (Nov 23, 2018)

steveK2016 said:


> ADA makes no exception. Take a chill pill and take the dog or find a new job.
> 
> There is: ask the two questions. If they fail, most do, then you dont take the dog.
> 
> ...


*Emotional Support Cat* Requirements. Making your *cat* an *emotional support animal* is not difficult or complicated. It is actually quite easy to qualify your *cat* as an ESA if you suffer from depression, anxiety, panic attacks, or any other mental illnesses

https://usserviceanimals.org/blog/emotional-support-cats










MY 4 years of driving experience is: cats show up in carriers


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

UberLyftFlexWhatever said:


> *Emotional Support Cat* Requirements. Making your *cat* an *emotional support animal* is not difficult or complicated. It is actually quite easy to qualify your *cat* as an ESA if you suffer from depression, anxiety, panic attacks, or any other mental illnesses
> 
> https://usserviceanimals.org/blog/emotional-support-cats
> 
> ...


STEWIE!


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UberLyftFlexWhatever said:


> *Emotional Support Cat* Requirements. Making your *cat* an *emotional support animal* is not difficult or complicated. It is actually quite easy to qualify your *cat* as an ESA if you suffer from depression, anxiety, panic attacks, or any other mental illnesses
> 
> https://usserviceanimals.org/blog/emotional-support-cats
> 
> ...


Emotional support animal is not the same as a service animal and is not protected the same. Ground transportation only require service animals, which is only dog and mini horse. Mini horse can be denied due to spacing issues.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

R1d1qls said:


> I guess I need to keep my epi pen in the car. Extremely allergic to cats. Dont mind dogs but would Lyft/Uber be willing to pay for cleaning all the hair up. Had been going to the same vet for 18+ years with our dogs and recently switched so I can walk the dogs to the vet and not have to spend time cleaning all the hair up.


Its service dogs not cats, doctors wouldn't put it in the law of they thought it would cause anaphylaxis, and if it did, it's most likely something the dog was in contact with


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UberLyftFlexWhatever said:


> *Emotional Support Cat* Requirements. Making your *cat* an *emotional support animal* is not difficult or complicated. It is actually quite easy to qualify your *cat* as an ESA if you suffer from depression, anxiety, panic attacks, or any other mental illnesses
> 
> https://usserviceanimals.org/blog/emotional-support-cats
> 
> ...


https://usserviceanimals.org/registration

I also wouldn't trust a website that is basically scamming people. There is no national registry for service or emotional support animals. There is no legal bearing to a "Registered Service Animal" and it's 100% a scam. Many people that fall for this scam don't even realize that they have and actually believe that by just registering their animal, that their animal is officially a service animal. It is not.

Lol, they sell you a "Doctor's Note" for $179
https://usserviceanimals.org/esa-letter

GTFO!

At least they are honest about it, even if they probably don't expect anyone to read into it that deeply



> *What is the Difference Between a Service Animal and an ESA?*
> The main difference between these two categories is that a service animal is typically allowed entrance into any place that the public is allowed. Emotional support animals have certain restrictions that prevent them from having this right.
> 
> Service animals are specifically trained to help individuals with disabilities perform daily tasks, while emotional support animals are there for companionship. You may greatly benefit from your emotional support animal, but you don't rely on it to help you complete daily activities.
> ...


----------



## UberLyftFlexWhatever (Nov 23, 2018)

steveK2016 said:


> https://usserviceanimals.org/registration
> 
> I also wouldn't trust a website that is basically scamming people. There is no national registry for service or emotional support animals. There is no legal bearing to a "Registered Service Animal" and it's 100% a scam. Many people that fall for this scam don't even realize that they have and actually believe that by just registering their animal, that their animal is officially a service animal. It is not.
> 
> ...


Different world 2day.
In cities and states where pot is legal with prescription
dispensaries have in-house doc
$100 fee gets u a script for Mary Jane.

Hopefully ride share will soon require driver testing few times a year.
Just had one for security clearance @ my FT job
No more piss in cup.
It's a stick in ur mouth with immediate results









The first FDA 510L cleared on-site saliva test! Oratect tests saliva for 5 or 6 drugs in minutes, in a format that is portable, non-invasive and easy to use.

One end has a brush like receptical u brush over ur tongue, inside cheek and under tongue. 30 secs the results. Uber greenlight hubs could administer 2x monthly for drivers.

I know I wouldn't want my daughter in an uber with a stoned driver.
And I don't want to be on the road near a stoned driver

Judging by many posting, seems some drivers are self medicating


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

UberLyftFlexWhatever said:


> I know I wouldn't want my daughter in an uber with a stoned driver.
> And I don't want to be on the road near a stones driver
> 
> Judging by many posting, seems some drivers are self medicating


Do you drink alcohol? Enjoy a cold beer on a Sunday while watching your favorite game?
Drink a couple fingers of 12 yr old scotch after a satisfying meal?

WHAT IF there was a test that could be given, quickly and cheaply, that could tell that you had that drink two days ago -- and WHAT IF there was a law that said you couldn't operate a car if you test positive for alcohol, Would that be ok with you? Would you feel safer? How many people would lose their freedom, jobs and family for a conviction like that?

WELL, that is the way marijuana testing is. If you smoked a week ago then you test positive today - you lose your job?

I smoke every day. At night, in my favorite chair with the legs up, I burn a bowl and have a two ounce drink. An hour later mom wakes me up and says "come on, lets go to bed". I have pain that I treat; and MJ allows me to rest at night - without using narcotics. But, if I get tested tomorrow I will test dirty. Not for the drink I had, nope, for the devils lettuce.

I take the chance because I don't want to do narcotics. I don't use dangerous drugs ... any more.


----------



## UberLyftFlexWhatever (Nov 23, 2018)

UberBastid said:


> Do you drink alcohol? Enjoy a cold beer on a Sunday while watching your favorite game?
> Drink a couple fingers of 12 yr old scotch after a satisfying meal?
> 
> WHAT IF there was a test that could be given, quickly and cheaply, that could tell that you had that drink two days ago -- and WHAT IF there was a law that said you couldn't operate a car if you test positive for alcohol, Would that be ok with you? Would you feel safer? How many people would lose their freedom, jobs and family for a conviction like that?
> ...


You're supporting that pot is a GATEWAY Drug to harder narcotics? Interesting.
BTW: I keep fit and don't self medicate to escape Your self imposed crap life.
Consumption of alcohol is not in my regime.
Lots don't consume alcohol nor pot

Dude, that's ur Chic & Chong world, your crowd, so u think it's OK
and rationalize your self medication.

Your lifestyle indicates you're irresponsible and can't be trusted with passengers nor sharing a public road next to moms in mini vans with little kids.

Only a matter of TIME until u get in over ur head, ****-Up and injure or kill the innocent.

:spiderman: I vote deactivation with extreme prejudice :spiderman:


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

UberLyftFlexWhatever said:


> Your supporting that pot is a GATEWAY Drug to harder narcotics? Interesting
> BTW: I keep fit. Consumption of alcohol is not in my regime.
> Lots don't consume alcohol nor pot
> 
> ...


Reefer Madness ... right? LoL.
I don't have a 'crowd' and my world is not all about me. 
I'm not going to argue with you, won't do any good.
But, I been living in this skin for almost 66 years now, and I know all about the care, operation and cleaning of my body. And, I got nothing to sell you. You operate yours, I'll operate mine.

For ME, marijuana saved my life. The docs were prescribing massive amounts of narcotics to me -- and I ate them like Chiclets. And, it took more and more to do the same job. I see the results of that practice every day; pushing shopping carts down the street, sleeping in an ally, begging for enough money to buy a rock of H. I was close to addiction. Very close. There but for the grace of God, go I. 
Then one evening my 30 year old step son sat with me on the couch and watched me throw back four Hydrocodone and wash it down with beer and asked "Have you ever thought of marijuana to help with the pain?" I told him that I'd used it recreationally when I was much younger and had no objection to it, but found that it intensified pain (and pleasure). He explained that it depends on the strain - I didn't know that there were specific strains to treat intractable pain. He left me a rolled smoke and said, "think about it." 
I got up at 4 am that morning because the pain woke me up. Time to take more narcotics. I saw the joint, and fired it up. It was amazing. It felt like the pain just melted out of me, I fell asleep and slept good and woke up without a narcotic hangover.
I've been smoking now, at home, in my chair just before bed every night for twenty years. And it has improved my life exponentially. I take a half of a Hydrocodone now, on average, about once a week. A really bad night, hurting a lot (maybe I did too much that day) once a week on average. That is the sum total of my narcotic intake. Doc gives me a script for 100 Norco and it lasts for two years. Not exaggerating. 
A gateway drug?
The gateway to destructive drugs is YOUR DOCTOR and YOUR PHARMACIST. Then when they get you good and hooked your doc will say "well, the licensing board is complaining that I'm prescribing too much narcotics, so I gotta cut you off." Then when you get the shakes you gotta go out and buy a dime bag of heroine. Where's the 'gateway' there?

Point is, that when I get into a car the next morning I am NOT HIGH. I am also not hung over from the legal heroine that the pharmacist sold me. I am not popping a couple with lunch, and another at 4pm just before I drive home.
I am allowed to live a normal, not-addicted and relatively pain free life. 
I was born a freeman, I will die a freeman. 
I make decisions about my body. Just me.

Now, I grow one or two plants every year. One is a high CBD strain. Very effective for inflammation, and pain. One is a high THC strain. Very relaxing, floating away, dreamy. It is my own blend - and it works on _my _body. Not a bad combination at night.

So, its a good thing that your vote doesn't count. It's a good thing that proper scientific research is being done on this amazing plant, finally. And it is good that it is being legalized all over the country.


----------



## UberLyftFlexWhatever (Nov 23, 2018)

UberBastid said:


> Reefer Madness ... right? LoL.
> I don't have a 'crowd' and my world is not all about me.
> I'm not going to argue with you, won't do any good.
> But, I been living in this skin for almost 66 years now, and I know all about the care, operation and cleaning of my body. And, I got nothing to sell you. You operate yours, I'll operate mine.
> ...


Are u high?

TL : DR

Typical run on pot story


----------



## RaleighUber (Dec 4, 2016)

mmn said:


> So, no exception for those allergic to dogs?


Nope. No exception for libraries, nor waiters/restaurants, nor shop keepers, hotel maids, cabbies or rideshare drivers. If you operate public transport, shops or accommodation...you are covered by the law.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

UberLyftFlexWhatever said:


> Are u high?
> 
> TL : DR
> 
> Typical run on pot story


No, I'm at work.
I don't get 'high' at work. Do you?

And, it _is _typical.
There's a LOT of people that this plant has helped.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

R1d1qls said:


> I guess I need to keep my epi pen in the car. Extremely allergic to cats. Dont mind dogs but would Lyft/Uber be willing to pay for cleaning all the hair up. Had been going to the same vet for 18+ years with our dogs and recently switched so I can walk the dogs to the vet and not have to spend time cleaning all the hair up.


Uber and Lyft are complying with the law by requiring their drivers to take service animals.

The law.

Why is this so hard to understand??



mmn said:


> So, no exception for those allergic to dogs?


Nope.


----------



## R1d1qls (Nov 21, 2018)

CTK said:


> Uber and Lyft are complying with the law by requiring their drivers to take service animals.
> 
> The law.
> 
> ...


Re-read, i totally understand and I am happy to take dogs. Just cant take cats or actually I can, but I am certain Uber/Lyft would not cover my medical bills if i had a reaction.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

R1d1qls said:


> Re-read, i totally understand and I am happy to take dogs. Just cant take cats or actually I can, but I am certain Uber/Lyft would not cover my medical bills if i had a reaction.


What I read was your griping about dog hair and wondering if U/L were going to pay cleaning fees, as though being required to take service animals is somehow U/L's fault.


----------



## R1d1qls (Nov 21, 2018)

Must be a misunderstanding or I typed it where it is portrayed wrong. I was not griping about taking dogs, just curious if they would pay for cleaning since I would prefer not to have to do it since I even changed my dogs vet to avoid having to clean it up. Heck, I have 3 dogs now, 1 passed away just 2 months ago, and I am always happy to hang out with dogs. Just a very busy life, only drive mornings during the week, and I dont really have time in my day to spend 30+ minutes vaccuming hair. I could just drop it off at the wash by my work.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

Legally every driver has to accommodate, Uber doesn’t have to spend a dime in extra programming and riders don’t have to wait for a driver willing to drive them. There’s no motivation at all for Uber to institute this.

You’re thinking like a driver. If you want Uber to make a change you have to think like a business owner.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

HotUberMess said:


> Legally every driver has to accommodate, Uber doesn't have to spend a dime in extra programming and riders don't have to wait for a driver willing to drive them. There's no motivation at all for Uber to institute this.
> 
> You're thinking like a driver. If you want Uber to make a change you have to think like a business owner.


No motivation cause it would be breaking the law.


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

steveK2016 said:


> There is: ask the two questions. If they fail, most do, then you dont take the dog.


1. Is this a service animal?
2. What is it trained to do?
Did I get that right?

C


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Christinebitg said:


> 1. Is this a service animal?
> 2. What is it trained to do?
> Did I get that right?
> 
> C


What task was it trained to do. They may claim its trained to be emotional support but that is not a task . it must be a specific, trained task.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> What task was it trained to do. They may claim its trained to be emotional support but that is not a task . it must be a specific, trained task.


Right. They fail the questions, you refuse the ride, they contact Uber and tell them that you refused to take a service animal, and Uber deactivates you.

What's the simplest solution of all? Just take the dog.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

CTK said:


> Right. They fail the questions, you refuse the ride, they contact Uber and tell them that you refused to take a service animal, and Uber deactivates you.
> 
> What's the simplest solution of all? Just take the dog.


Report the incident immediately before the pax does and state you have video of the incorrect answers. There's a driver on this forum that has multiple videos of him doing just that and he hasnt been deactivated


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.
> 
> Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.
> 
> ...


Doesn't the door swing both ways? We as drivers legally should be able to have service animals.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

mmn said:


> So, no exception for those allergic to dogs?


Nope.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

AnotherUberGuy said:


> My issue is when folks bring their random mutt into the car and claim, "This is my service dog." There must be something we can do about this issue.


If you learn the law, you know there is. Observation of the dog's behavior, and the two questions. That will weed out almost all of the fakes, and the ones it doesn't won't be a problem for you, so so what?



R1d1qls said:


> There are now people claiming all kinds of animals as service animals. In reality, its more like "comfort" animals but as long as this new generation complains about anxiety issues, then they will continue to claim whatever kind of animal they want as service animals. My daughter has a friend what has a damn hedgehog as his "service animal". Is there an actual list of what Lyft/Uber claim to be considered service animals?
> 
> I keep it in my work bag but I occasionally leave it at work with my laptop if I worked late at night.
> 
> AHH, emotional support animal is what I was thinking of. Alot of people now try to claim those as service animals.


Most of the people who are claiming that their emotional support animals are actually service animals are doing so in ignorance. There are a lot of companies that can be accessed on the internet that will help you get your animal registered as either. The problem is, there's no actual registry for a real service animal. None for an emotional support animal, either. With an emotional support animal, the only benefit a person gets is to be able to take them on airplanes, and be able to have them in apartments or in hotels when they're traveling. Uber and Lyft do not force you to take emotional support animals, although when a passenger complains, they're always going to call that ESA a service animal. It's up to you to point out to Uber or Lyft that you did not deny a service animal, and point out your observations of the animal's behavior and the two questions that were asked and the responses that were given. Uber will not look at any dash cam footage you have if you try to submit it through the app or offer it to someone that you're speaking to on the phone. You would have to go into a Greenlight hub and have one of the service reps there look at it and forward the information up the line.

There are only two animals that can legally be called service animals, provided they have the proper disposition and training: dogs and miniature horses. Not even monkeys trained to help para- or quadriplegics are considered service animals under the law, and they are not protected by it.

If you are out for a substantial amount of time, this is one of those situations where it is actually worth it to sue the pax that made the false accusation to recoup your lost earnings. One by one, states are starting to pass laws that have penalties for trying to pass off a fake service animal. If that person gets into court and cannot prove that their dog is a service animal, they're screwed.



SurgeMasterMN said:


> Doesn't the door swing both ways? We as drivers legally should be able to have service animals.


The law does swing both ways. There was a moderator on this forum that I haven't seen in awhile, Pawtism, who always brought his service animal with him. The catch is, that the animal cannot take up space that a Pax would need. A trained service animal will curl up under your legs, or be in a backpack type of holder up on your chest, depending on the reason you need it.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> Report the incident immediately before the pax does and state you have video of the incorrect answers. There's a driver on this forum that has multiple videos of him doing just that and he hasnt been deactivated


You read it on an internet forum, so it must be true! I for one don't want to put myself in a position where I trust Uber to take my word over the rider's.

It comes up really so very rarely, just take the dog.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

HotUberMess said:


> Legally every driver has to accommodate, Uber doesn't have to spend a dime in extra programming and riders don't have to wait for a driver willing to drive them. There's no motivation at all for Uber to institute this.
> 
> You're thinking like a driver. If you want Uber to make a change you have to think like a business owner.


I've owned a variety of businesses as well as ran a few for others.

If I know a customer is coming in that has some special need they like accommodated and my staff of 20 has 16 people that will willingly accommodate that need and 4 that will ***** and moan and possibly not provide them the service they deserve I simply direct 1 of the 16 to serve them.

If 99% of my business are people without that need and those other 4 people are good at dealing with them there is no reason for me to get rid of them.

By many of your arguments here UBER/LYFT should knowing lt send driver to riders with a special need irregardless of whether or not that driver will fulfill the need. Sure. They get a reason to fire someone but the the client was inconvenienced and a situation occurred that could have been avoided.

Most of you do not "get it" but "it" is a solution to provide the clients with the best possible service from staff happy and willing to care for their needs.

And NO. No law is being broken when clients are having their needs met.


----------



## Squeaking Lion (Nov 11, 2018)

TL;DR - There are legal ways out of transporting a service animal if you don't want to, but be smart about it.

I don't understand why this is any different than the multitude of other cancellations drivers do for pretty much any and every reason on earth. I mean, we have hundreds of threads of people stating very definitively that they'll cancel a ride at the drop of a hat simply because they don't like the way a pax looks. Hell, me personally, if I take a ride and then notice that the location is a high school, or the rider looks like they might be underage, I cancel the ride and move on... there's no question about it. It's my business, I'll take the rides I want, and that's that.

But if you don't want to pick up a rider if you see they have an animal, then do what you do with every other unwanted rider: cancel, and move on. You're an independent contractor, which means you can choose whatever fares you want to take. Yes, it's the law that you have to accept service animals with your riders... but it's also the law that says an independent contractor may set their own hours and their own schedules and their own contracts. So if you pull up and see that the rider has an animal, don't stop. Simply drive away and cancel. If you get reported, it's a simple matter of stating that you chose to stop taking rides for awhile, and it had nothing to do with the animal at all. And that's IF you even get reported, since the pax can't prove that's the reason you left. Be smart about it, though, and don't charge the rider... they'll be pissed that you cancelled, but since they weren't charged, there's really no reason to pursue the matter.

But let's say you are already sitting and waiting there, and they walk out with an animal. Don't argue with them, don't talk to them, don't say anything. Just leave. Again, don't charge the rider... just be smart and avoid the complication. If questioned later, you can say the pax was late, or looked threatening, or you had a bathroom emergency and had to leave in a hurry. Hell, you can say you didn't see them and left. Whatever is appropriate for the situation. But if they aren't in your vehicle, then the ride hasn't started yet, and as long as they don't get charged, you can just drive off. Good luck to the pax trying to prove that it had anything to do with their animal.

If you weren't observant enough to see the animal coming before they get in your vehicle, then you're probably out of luck, and it's your own fault for unlocking your doors before you were ready. But if they're already in your vehicle, you might get away with claiming illness, apologizing profusely and as sincerely as possible for the inconvenience, telling them you thought you could handle the ride but you really feel sick, and try to look as pathetic as possible... be smart about it, and when you cancel the ride, don't charge the rider. Chances are, though, once they are in your vehicle, you're stuck. There's really no legal way to avoid the ride.... except one, and I'll explain below.

Now, I'm fine with picking up pets as long as they are on leashes and they're clean... I keep a Dust Buster vacuum in the car because of dirty feet, anyway; pet hair cleans up as fast as dirt and leaves. Service and ESA animals are typically kept very clean and are at least fairly well trained, so it's not usually an issue. And I have a deodorizer and air freshener in the car, so if they're clean, it's a quick and easy fix. But if the animal is muddy or filthy, or not on a leash or carrier, then they're denied, and I have every legal right to do so. Leash laws are as strict as ADA, and just as binding. Any ADA owner knows very well to have their animal leashed and marked, and if they're not, chances are damn good that animal isn't ADA. Also, ADA may require us to take service animals, but that same law indicates that animal must be clean and dry, leashed, marked properly or in their service vest, and in good health, AND the owner must have the appropriate documentation on hand to prove the animal is, in fact, ADA... otherwise, the car owner may refuse with no repercussions. That includes rideshare.

I have many friends with service animals and ESA animals, and they've educated me on these laws very thoroughly.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Squeaking Lion said:


> TL;DR - There are legal ways out of transporting a service animal if you don't want to, but be smart about it.
> 
> I don't understand why this is any different than the multitude of other cancellations drivers do for pretty much any and every reason on earth. I mean, we have hundreds of threads of people stating very definitively that they'll cancel a ride at the drop of a hat simply because they don't like the way a pax looks. Hell, me personally, if I take a ride and then notice that the location is a high school, or the rider looks like they might be underage, I cancel the ride and move on... there's no question about it. It's my business, I'll take the rides I want, and that's that.
> 
> ...


Your friends don't know the law, then. No markings, vest, or documentation are required. The animal must be "under control." That's generally a leash, but not necessarily.

Don't any of you people READ?

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Don't any of you people READ?


The short answer is "No."

They just want to spout off. Oh, we're independent contractors! So they'll knowingly break the law, get deactivated, and then whine about how terrible Uber is.

The only reason it doesn't happen more is because there are so few animals that we ever see. I've driven more than 650 trips and haven't seen one yet. Eventually I will. And when I do, I'll probably take the animal and move on.

Christine


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

R1d1qls said:


> Must be a misunderstanding or I typed it where it is portrayed wrong. I was not griping about taking dogs, just curious if they would pay for cleaning since I would prefer not to have to do it since I even changed my dogs vet to avoid having to clean it up. Heck, I have 3 dogs now, 1 passed away just 2 months ago, and I am always happy to hang out with dogs. Just a very busy life, only drive mornings during the week, and I dont really have time in my day to spend 30+ minutes vaccuming hair. I could just drop it off at the wash by my work.


Sorry for your loss. Terrible thing when they pass on.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Christinebitg said:


> 1. Is this a service animal?



"Is this is a service animal that is required because of a disability?" (And it is illegal to ask WHAT disability.)


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

JimKE said:


> And it is illegal to ask WHAT disability


Probably. You can ask anyway, if you really want to know.

You probably don't really want to know.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Squeaking Lion said:


> Leash laws are as strict as ADA, and just as binding. Any ADA owner knows very well to have their animal leashed and marked, and if they're not, chances are damn good that animal isn't ADA. Also, ADA may require us to take service animals, but that same law indicates that animal must be clean and dry, leashed, marked properly or in their service vest, and in good health, AND the owner must have the appropriate documentation on hand to prove the animal is, in fact, ADA... otherwise, the car owner may refuse with no repercussions. That includes rideshare.


This is total nonsense. It shows complete ignorance of the law, and will get drivers in trouble if they follow it.


> I have many friends with service animals and ESA animals, and they've educated me on these laws very thoroughly.


Obviously not.

I'm always amused when our Canadian friends try to instruct us on American laws they know absolutely nothing about, lol!


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Only had 3 dogs in 2 years. One was a service animal for a blind guy. I was gonna remove the seat cover and shake the dog hair out. But was so little, I just brushed it off with my hand.

Even If I didn't look forward to having critters as passengers. It's not a big deal and I get paid no matter how many feet the passengers have.

I think of it as just part of the job I signed up for.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Christinebitg said:


> Probably. You can ask anyway, if you really want to know.


Not "probably," Christine. The law specifically states that it is *illegal* to ask what disability the person has. They may _choose_ to tell you, or their answer about the dog's tasks may tell you, but you are NOT allowed to ask.

That is also one of the triggers which will stimulate a complaint from the disabled person roughly 100% of the time.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

*Just for new drivers......
*
Both Uber and Lyft take this seriously and have lost lots of money when sued over this issue. If in doubt and you want to stay driving for them, take the dog.

Don't mean to take away from the discussion. Just looking out for you. Take the dog.

Any thing that can get them bad press or cause legal action, they will throw you away a lot faster than looking out for you. I can see their point and it is law.

Just for your own benefit, Take the dawg.

Sorry for the interruption and please carry on.

Drive safe and happy Holidays all!!!


----------



## AnotherUberGuy (Oct 26, 2018)

For the benefit of those who didn't know (me): Here are the two questions. Professor Google produces numerous websites that you can chase this further as desired.

(1)_ Is the animal required because of a disability?_; and

(2) _What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?_

However, a business may _not_ ask these two questions when it is readily apparent that the service animal is performing a task for a patron with a disability (for example, a dog that is observed guiding a person who is blind or has low vision). Also off limits are questions about the nature or extent of a patron's disability and requests for proof of service animal training, licensing or certification.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Squeaking Lion said:


> TL;DR - There are legal ways out of transporting a service animal if you don't want to, but be smart about it.
> 
> I don't understand why this is any different than the multitude of other cancellations drivers do for pretty much any and every reason on earth. I mean, we have hundreds of threads of people stating very definitively that they'll cancel a ride at the drop of a hat simply because they don't like the way a pax looks. Hell, me personally, if I take a ride and then notice that the location is a high school, or the rider looks like they might be underage, I cancel the ride and move on... there's no question about it. It's my business, I'll take the rides I want, and that's that.
> 
> ...


Lol theres no vest requirement and no documentation requirements either in the USA. Your friend is full of hot air and doesnt know anything.

Uber pays $25 for those with service animals to report driver violation . you might get away with driving off the first time, but once a pattern emerges you can bet your bottom dollar they will deactivate you with no recourse. Unless you have footage shoing you asked the 2 questions and they failed to answer correctly, you'll be permanently deactivated.

Personally, I would take the dog and get the cleaning fee. Simple, but your answer is far from the correct answer. In fact it is the definition of a wrong answer. People with service animals have been dealing with your type of antics for years, you are the reason the laws are so strict in their favor.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

mmn said:


> So, no exception for those allergic to dogs?


There's verbiage in the law specifically stating that it isn't good enough,


----------



## TDR (Oct 15, 2017)

He trained to answer questions


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

CTK said:


> allowing drivers to opt out of taking service animals violates the law.


It does. Even if Uber wanted to buy its way around this one, it probably could not. If Uber did try to buy its way around it, that would cost money and would benefit drivers, only. The last thing about which Uber cares is its drivers.

*Q:*


mmn said:


> So, no exception for those allergic to dogs?


*A:* No.



AnotherUberGuy said:


> My issue is when folks bring their random mutt into the car and claim, "This is my service dog." There must be something we can do about this issue.


The airlines are starting to do something about it, but airlines have money to pay high powered lawyers. You can barely pay your rent on the 1976 cab rates that you are collecting.



steveK2016 said:


> ADA makes no exception.


This is one of the objections that I do have to this. Why does the blind person's disability trump that of the guy with a physical allergy for which he can provide medical documentation? Let the drivers file a form with the local regulators, the TNCs and keep a copy in his car.



UberBastid said:


> WHAT IF there was a test that could be given, quickly and cheaply, that could tell that you had that drink two days ago -- and WHAT IF there was a law that said you couldn't operate a car if you test positive for alcohol, Would that be ok with you? Would you feel safer? How many people would lose their freedom, jobs and family for a conviction like that?
> .


At some point, they might be able to develop such a test. If MADD has its way, that will be the law. It is part of MADD's gradualistic programme to re-instate the Eighteenth Amendment.



CTK said:


> What I read was your griping about dog hair and wondering if U/L were going to pay cleaning fees, as though being required to take service animals is somehow U/L's fault.


This is another objection that I have to this. Why should I get put out of business and be required to pay for cleaning a mess that I did not make? One of the signs of being an adult is that you clean up after yourself. That dog sheds, let its owner pay for my vacuum job and for the time that it took to remove the dog hair.

I do file for a cleaning fee if the dog sheds. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I do not.



CTK said:


> Right. They fail the questions, you refuse the ride, they contact Uber and tell them that you refused to take a service animal, and Uber deactivates you.


Uber always believes the customer, anyhow. That goes double for situations such as this.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> There's verbiage in the law specifically stating that it isn't good enough,


There is. What is funny is that initally, the Capital Of Your Nation allowed allergic cab drivers to duck it by filing documents to that effect. They sneaked in a rule change and did not bother to tell anyone. The District of Columbia Government has a reputation for violating its own rules, though.


----------



## Dave Bust (Jun 28, 2017)

in 2,000 rides i had 2 dogs


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Why does the blind person's disability trump that of the guy with a physical allergy for which he can provide medical documentation?


Because that's what the law says.

Why it says that may be open to question. The fact that it DOES say that is incontrovertible.

I get your complaint. The law was written the way it was because disabled people were being denied service on a regular basis, by people who didn't feel like making reasonable accommodations.



Another Uber Driver said:


> At some point, they might be able to develop such a test. If MADD has its way, that will be the law. It is part of MADD's gradualistic programme to re-instate the Eighteenth Amendment.


I agree with you. There are people who would love to reinstate prohibition. There are still some dry counties here in Texas.

Christine


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> It does. Even if Uber wanted to buy its way around this one, it probably could not. If Uber did try to buy its way around it, that would cost money and would benefit drivers, only. The last thing about which Uber cares is its drivers.
> 
> *Q:*
> 
> ...


Someone with allergies can take a clariton. The blind guy will always be blind.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Christinebitg said:


> Because that's what the law says.


I am not unaware of that. I am not an eight year old. I am not a "Good German". I do not subscribe to authoritarianism.



> The fact that it DOES say that is incontrovertible.


I am aware of that for several reasons: my background, my education (I am actually literate), my experience and my keeping up with events, to name a few. Despite that, my above reply does apply.



> I get your complaint. The law was written the way it was because disabled people were being denied service on a regular basis, by people who didn't feel like making reasonable accommodations.


The solution, then, is to compel people to make unreasonable accommodations, *correctamundo?*
The problem with these laws that are meant to remedy discrimination is that they go too far the other way and start to discriminate against someone else. Quotas and Affirmative Action are shining examples of that.



> *Why* it says that may be open to question


^^^^^^^^(emphases added)...As the quote from my post demonstrates, that _*was*_ the question.\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/


Another Uber Driver said:


> *Why* does the blind person's disability trump that of the guy with a physical allergy for which he can provide medical documentation?





> There are people who would love to reinstate prohibition.


MADD is one such group.



> There are still some dry counties here in Texas.


I do not know of any dry counties in Massachusetts, but there are dry towns. My father lives next to one. Of course, there is far more surface area to Tejas than to Massachusetts.



steveK2016 said:


> Someone with allergies can take a clariton. The blind guy will always be blind.


Claritin is not effective in every case. In addition, some people can not use Claritin.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I've owned a variety of businesses as well as ran a few for others.
> 
> If I know a customer is coming in that has some special need they like accommodated and my staff of 20 has 16 people that will willingly accommodate that need and 4 that will @@@@@ and moan and possibly not provide them the service they deserve I simply direct 1 of the 16 to serve them.
> 
> ...


Good for you, that's your motivation. You still have not given a reason Uber would be motivated to implement this since it would 
1. Cost money to adapt the software
2. Cost time to get a special driver to the rider


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

HotUberMess said:


> Good for you, that's your motivation. You still have not given a reason Uber would be motivated to implement this since it would
> 1. Cost money to adapt the software
> 2. Cost time to get a special driver to the rider


Actually, I did explain the benefit.

1) never sending a driver that will refuse the ride =
a) always satisfied Passenger
b) Driver not griping or refusing to drive someone
c) lowers exposure to legal issues

I don't believe it would cost time at all. There are probably 50-100% more drivers than needed in every market and how many people are really going to want to opt out? IMO a very small percentage.

They could still enforce the YOU MUST DRIVE THEM policy they have and send someone that opted out if no one else was available but how likely is that?


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The solution, then, is to compel people to make unreasonable accommodations, *correctamundo?*


On the contrary.

If a disabled person can't get a ride at all, they're screwed. Just totally screwed.

If a driver has such a problem with driving a seeing eye dog, that driver CAN find a more suitable line of work. One that does not involve working with the public.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> They could still enforce the YOU MUST DRIVE THEM policy they have and send someone that opted out if no one else was available but how likely is that?


It happens more often than you would think. I live in the Capital of Your Nation. I have had it occur that I was driving the only available Uber or Lyft car in the area. This has occurred in the City, close-in suburb and exurb. If you have it set up that half the drivers will not haul the dog, no car available could occur more frequently. In addition, you might get more than half the drivers' opting out of _*animules*_.

If my experience in the cab business is at all instructive:

As a dispatcher, there were more than a few times that I had difficulty covering calls that had animals, even if the animal were in a carrier. 
When MyTaxi operated here, it had an option where drivers could indicate that they would accept animals. I indicated such. When a ping came that had an animal, there was a doggie icon. Despite that, I had several customers who had animals and no doggie icon showed when the ping came. I asked the customers about it. They told me that as soon as they indicated that they had an animal, the available cabs vanished. I had no problem with the animals, but I did advise those customers that some drivers did. Most of them related an experience where they were refused transportation due to the animal. In the cab, doggie hair is no big deal. I have rubber floors and vinyl covered seats. The Dustbuster® makes short work of that hair when it is on vinyl covered seats and rubber floors. I have carried a Dustbuster™ for years. They are not expensive. This brings us to another matter that seems to arise every time that there is a problem with the TNCs: money.

The cab rates are far better for the driver than are TNC rates. Vinyl seat covering and rubber flooring costs something called money. I can pay 2018 prices at a shop to cover the seats and floors out of current cab rates. The TNCs pay 1976 cab rates. I can not find a shop that will cover the seats and floors for 1976 prices. If I could, I would have had it done some time past. The TNCs need to learn that it costs money to deliver a service. In the capitalistic economy that we have in this country, the customer pays the cost of doing business. This is one reason, out of several, that the TNCs must increase rates and payouts to drivers markédly. If you could afford to have your seats and floors covered, the Dustbbuster®, a bottle of Spray Nine™ and a roll of Scott Towels™ would make short work of any ani_*mule*_ mess. Whatever de-odoriser that you use would take care of the smell.

If the TNCs paid realistic rates, those who choose not to take preventive measures to deal with messes could take the consequences of their choices (or lack thereof). As the TNCs refuse to pay realistic rates, drivers do what they must.



Christinebitg said:


> If a disabled person can't get a ride at all, they're screwed. Just totally screwed.
> 
> If a driver has such a problem with driving a seeing eye dog, that driver CAN find a more suitable line of work. One that does not involve working with the public.


Oh, I see, we deny someone an occupational choice based on a disability that keeps him from doing his job only in select cases.

In your example the blind person is not getting a ride anyhow, because the allergic driver is not driving so now there are no cars available, anyhow. The blind person is now "screwed", anyhow. The allergic driver can do his job ninety nine per-cent of the time. Those are pretty good odds.

I will concede that there are many who simply do not like the animals. The way that you address that is have the driver, at his expense, obtain medical documentation that he is allergic to animals. He then files that with the TNCs, the regulators and keeps a copy in his car. The Capital of Your Nation did this with the cabs, while it was allowing an exemption for allergic drivers. There are enough TNC drivers out there that the blind person would get his ride, eventually.


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Oh, I see, we deny someone an occupational choice based on a disability that keeps him from doing his job only in select cases.


Yes, and I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Christinebitg said:


> Yes, and I don't have a problem with that.


That could bring legal problems, if nothing else. I have a major problem with it. If I can do the job ninety nine per-cent of the time, and, someone else is available for the other one per-cent, that should not be a bar, not in this business, at least.

They do not deny a cab driver a hack licence because he needs crutches to walk. This cab driver can not load foldable wheelchairs or assist people to his cab, but he can drive them places. He can handle ninety nine per-cent of the tasks required. Another cab driver can deal with the one per-cent. Ask me how I know this.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The airlines are starting to do something about it, but airlines have money to pay high powered lawyers. You can barely pay your rent on the 1976 cab rates that you are collecting.


Major fallacy with this statement: It's not the lawyers.

Airlines are NOT governed by ADA; there is a specific law for airlines and it has different requirements from ADA. In many ways, the airline law is even more stringent than ADA.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Actually, I did explain the benefit.
> 
> 1) never sending a driver that will refuse the ride =
> a) always satisfied Passenger
> ...


Even a 30 second delay will expose them to lawsuit. Disabled people cannot recieve less than the services of non-disabled: that is discrimination. If drivers have an option to prevent dogs in thejr car, most will do it.

By law, uber cannot make a system like you are describing. Uber didnt want to be subject to ADA law, they tried to fight it but ended up settling knowing they would lose.


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

I think that when you really break these types of threads down, they really boil down to what we fundamentally believe is important in society. The progress we've made and the 21st century world of human rights that so many of us enjoy took thousands of years to build. If we start poking holes in it, the whole thing falls apart fast:
So this one industry is given the go ahead to choose whether or not to comply with human rights legislation. Now every other industry is knocking on that door saying why aren't we invited to the party?
Now everybody's arguing well if we can undermine disability laws for our own benefit, why can't we do it to the LGBTQ+ community? the elderly? people of colour?? women? you name it. Where does it stop?
To those who resent minor inconveniences... you'll eat humble pie when it's your turn for your body to fail you.
Allergies should absolutely be considered legitimate grounds for reasonable accommodation though; fair is fair in that respect.


----------



## Cary Grant (Jul 14, 2015)

For all the somnambulant serf/slaves, bootlickers, and statists/statheists that wax off about "the law" -- you have _collectively _(no pun intended) failed to see the forrest of scofflaws for the trees of your virtue signaling.

In a market of over 8 million, with almost 14,000 rides completed, including hundreds of pickups at places that employ the blind, vision impaired, and otherwise handicapped, I've yet to see the FIRST legitimate service animal.

I have rejected over 100 fake service animals (therapy dogs, emotional support dogs) presented by scofflaws, with video and audio evidence to support their clear violation of state law prohibiting this fraudulent abuse. I've never been waitlisted for these denials of service, either, because I know how to keep the moat wide and deep.

The ADA is a joke. The idea might have been sound, but in practice, it has become an indefensible and corrupt waste of ink on paper, because it's now abused by legions of non-thinkers that make up the majority of the franchise.

For anyone else that's had problems with fake service animals, if you get a scofflaw that knows how to bamboozle the system and force you to participate in their crime, automatically 1-star them, and submit a clean up fee for everything you can find. There are things you can do to make sure you won't be matched again, and the scofflaws will leave their pet at home next time. If they do or say ANYTHING untoward, write them up.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

UberBastid said:


> No, I'm at work.
> I don't get 'high' at work. Do you?
> 
> And, it _is _typical.
> There's a LOT of people that this plant has helped.


I think it was 20/20 possibly dateline that did a special on how CBD basically cured children with severe seizures. They even flipped several doctors that now agree that it requires further research who used to be anti marijuana.

If you watched that episode and see the before and after what the kids looked like before and how they are now I would like to think most would at least agree for further testing.



SurgeMasterMN said:


> Doesn't the door swing both ways? We as drivers legally should be able to have service animals.


I've seen drivers with most likely fake service dogs as well lol

There was actually an ubereats driver who recently claimed he got deactivated over it here


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.
> 
> Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.
> 
> ...


I've never had a problem with dogs, but I have had considerable problems with humans


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Kodyhead said:


> I think it was 20/20 possibly dateline that did a special on how CBD basically cured children with severe seizures. They even flipped several doctors that now agree that it requires further research who used to be anti marijuana.
> 
> If you watched that episode and see the before and after what the kids looked like before and how they are now I would like to think most would at least agree for further testing.


You're talking about the people in NJ that had a 2 yr old girl that was having grand mal seizures so often that her doctors said she'd die soon. She'd have fifteen or twenty seizures a day. Yes, a day. Poor kid. 
The parents tried everything modern science could offer; finally they took her to Colorado and found a doctor who gave her large doses of CBD. Her seizures went down to less than two per month. They wanted to go "home" to NJ and Chris Christie was presented with the evidence and changes, and that jack-ass told parents that if they gave the child CBD in NJ that Child Protective Services would take the girl from them for 'child abuse'. Believe that? Child abuse.
They had to sell their home, quit their (high paying) jobs and move to Colorado to save their child's life. 
Five years later she is now in school, and leading a relatively normal little girl life.
The strain that was developed for her is called "Charlotte's Web", one of the very first high CBD plants ever. It is a relative to the strain that I use which is "AC/DC" which is more stable.
THC however, is NOT bad for you. It makes you relax and feel good. And, what's so bad about that? The two together are an amazing combination.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Cary Grant said:


> For all the somnambulant serf/slaves, bootlickers, and statists/statheists that wax off about "the law" -- you have _collectively _(no pun intended) failed to see the forrest of scofflaws for the trees of your virtue signaling.


I don't have any virtues. I just don't like to see naive fellow-drivers misled by either ignorance or political posturing.

The only real question that is important to drivers is this: * What will Uber (or Lyft) DO if you receive a complaint for refusing a service animal?*

All this misinformation, jailhouse lawyering, and political silliness means nothing. 

Drivers need to* avoid unnecessary risk that could deprive them of their livelihood.

Just drive the damn dog!*


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

UberBastid said:


> You're talking about the people in NJ that had a 2 yr old girl that was having grand mal seizures so often that her doctors said she'd die soon. She'd have fifteen or twenty seizures a day. Yes, a day. Poor kid.
> The parents tried everything modern science could offer; finally they took her to Colorado and found a doctor who gave her large doses of CBD. Her seizures went down to less than two per month. They wanted to go "home" to NJ and Chris Christie was presented with the evidence and changes, and that jack-ass told parents that if they gave the child CBD in NJ that Child Protective Services would take the girl from them for 'child abuse'. Believe that? Child abuse.
> They had to sell their home, quit their (high paying) jobs and move to Colorado to save their child's life.
> Five years later she is now in school, and leading a relatively normal little girl life.
> ...


I thought it was from Virginia but there was multiple families in the episodes and could be from nj too.

There was also claims that it could help with opioid addiction as well.

At the very least I think it deserves more funding got research and testing imo


----------



## mmn (Oct 23, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> I've never had a problem with dogs, but I have had considerable problems with humans


I'll go for dogs every time...!


----------



## Cary Grant (Jul 14, 2015)

JimKE said:


> All this misinformation, jailhouse lawyering, and political silliness means nothing.
> 
> Drivers need to* avoid unnecessary risk that could deprive them of their livelihood.
> 
> Just drive the damn dog!*


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke


----------



## xgamrgeekx (Dec 1, 2018)

The one time I've had a service animal, so far, I didn't even know he was in the car the whole ride. The obviously blind pax had the dog sitting on the floor under his legs. Unfortunately I didn't get the blanket down before they got in, but the hair was minimal. We have two dogs, both have been in the car before and since I became a driver. I keep the inside vac'd as needed (pretty much before each time I head out). It really shouldn't even be debated.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I've owned a variety of businesses as well as ran a few for others.
> 
> If I know a customer is coming in that has some special need they like accommodated and my staff of 20 has 16 people that will willingly accommodate that need and 4 that will @@@@@ and moan and possibly not provide them the service they deserve I simply direct 1 of the 16 to serve them.
> 
> ...


You don't get it, and you probably don't want to get it. Uber & Lyft already asked their drivers if they would take service animals and 100% of drivers answered yes. If someone answered no, they were not granted access to the platform. 
Your proposal would violate the law.


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

UberBastid said:


> THC however, is NOT bad for you.


It's not. Unless consuming three or four hot dogs is. Or a whole medium sized pizza.

I don't smoke, and I haven't for a lot of years. But I still remember how much I wanted to eat back then.

And then there's the fact that it's a gateway to good sex. LOL

Christine


----------



## MoreTips (Feb 13, 2017)

Super easy way I play this game. Out of 5000 rides I've had maybe 3 authentic service dogs. For all the other pets people have brought into my car its rather simple if the dog sits on the floorboard or the pax lap and leaves no mess everything is good. A pax that claims a service dog and it obviously isn't and it leaves a hairy mess gets me a $40 cleaning fee bonus. 

If any pax brings a dog and doesn't try to lie about its status will get to bring it. I especially appreciate the riders that call ahead and ask permission but the riders that just jump in with their hairy friend, and leave a mess with no tip coming in within 5 minutes get a cleaning fee. Seems fair, a 5 dollar tip goes a long way.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Christinebitg said:


> It's not. Unless consuming three or four hot dogs is. Or a whole medium sized pizza.
> 
> I don't smoke, and I haven't for a lot of years. But I still remember how much I wanted to eat back then.
> 
> ...


If you cant exercise, jazzercise!


----------



## xgamrgeekx (Dec 1, 2018)

Christinebitg said:


> It's not. Unless consuming three or four hot dogs is. Or a whole medium sized pizza.


I once ate an entire coffee cake to myself.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Squeaking Lion said:


> TL;DR - There are legal ways out of transporting a service animal if you don't want to, but be smart about it.
> 
> I don't understand why this is any different than the multitude of other cancellations drivers do for pretty much any and every reason on earth. I mean, we have hundreds of threads of people stating very definitively that they'll cancel a ride at the drop of a hat simply because they don't like the way a pax looks. Hell, me personally, if I take a ride and then notice that the location is a high school, or the rider looks like they might be underage, I cancel the ride and move on... there's no question about it. It's my business, I'll take the rides I want, and that's that.
> 
> ...


Service Animals actually DON'T have to be leashed, regardless of local leash laws. Sometimes a leash interferes with one or more of their tasks. And they don't have to be wearing a label of any sort, either. Also, there is no such thing as documentation for Service Animals. There is for people who have ESAs, but that's about the person, not the animal, and is really only legally binding for housing and traveling on PLANES... nothing else.

Stop listening to people that purchased SA/ESA "documentation" online, and go read the law and case law. Your advice us terrible, and a great way to get sued.


----------



## NOXDriver (Aug 12, 2018)

DustyChode said:


> Dog hair all over my interior = $150 cleaning fee.
> I don't discriminate. You make a mess, you pay.
> 
> They're all equal to me.
> If I dont put in for the cleaning fee I feel like I am treating them differently then someone without a service animal.


lol not gonna happen


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> You don't get it, and you probably don't want to get it. Uber & Lyft already asked their drivers if they would take service animals and 100% of drivers answered yes. If someone answered no, they were not granted access to the platform.
> Your proposal would violate the law.


If a Passenger with a service dog initiates a request and the rideshare company dispatches a driver that drives them, what "law" has been broken?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

All you really need is for one person to stand up and say this law is ****ed up and take the fine and then appeal it and force congress to change it to allow for an "I don't want to die because I'm forced to take a service dog that I'm allergic to" exemption.


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> All you really need is for one person to stand up and say this law is @@@@ed up and take the fine and then appeal it and force congress to change it to allow for an "I don't want to die because I'm forced to take a service dog that I'm allergic to" exemption.


Get serious. Just filing that appeal would cost upwards of $10,000.

And that's money you don't get back, even if you win.


----------



## GreatGooglyMoogly (Mar 2, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Service Animals actually DON'T have to be leashed, regardless of local leash laws. Sometimes a leash interferes with one or more of their tasks. And they don't have to be wearing a label of any sort, either. Also, there is no such thing as documentation for Service Animals. There is for people who have ESAs, but that's about the person, not the animal, and is really only legally binding for housing and traveling on PLANES... nothing else.
> 
> Stop listening to people that purchased SA/ESA "documentation" online, and go read the law and case law. Your advice us terrible, and a great way to get sued.


** This. My wife's dog fetches her meds, opens doors, and (at my request) will get a water or a beer from the fridge.



uberdriverfornow said:


> All you really need is for one person to stand up and say this law is @@@@ed up and take the fine and then appeal it and force congress to change it to allow for an "I don't want to die because I'm forced to take a service dog that I'm allergic to" exemption.


** LOL. Do you really think that this hasn't happed already? The ADA has faced countless court challenges and has withstood every one, because it is clearly constitutional.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

GreatGooglyMoogly said:


> ** This. My wife's dog fetches her meds, opens doors, and (at my request) will get a water or a beer from the fridge.
> 
> ** LOL. Do you really think that this hasn't happed already? The ADA has faced countless court challenges and has withstood every one, because it is clearly constitutional.


The ADA law was written, specifically, to guarantee the Constitutional rights of disabled people in a more clearly-defined way than the Constitution does. Service Animals are only one part of the law.

Here's the thing to consider... If it would be wrong to deny service to someone that wears glasses, it's wrong to deny a legit SA. From a legal standpoint, they're the same thing: medical equipment.

When driving, I took dogs, cats, and a lizard (in a box, not the account holder). So long as they were clean and well-behaved, no problem. I did NOT take riders who had dogs with them and failed the question and observation test after they were presented as SAs. Why? Because the riders proved themselves to be liars and scammers, that's why.

And I would tell them that if they tried to report me for it, I AM the B**** that has a dash cam and would sue for lost income and punitive damages and press criminal charges (even if only misdemeanor) against them if they tried to report me for not taking their "service animal", and they would have to prove their claim in court, absolutely, or pay dearly.

Refused a few. Was never reported. Go figure.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> If a Passenger with a service dog initiates a request and the rideshare company dispatches a driver that drives them, what "law" has been broken?


The *Americans with Disabilities Act.*

Which, incidentally, was *passed in 1990*...and has been the law of the land for 28+ years.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> If a Passenger with a service dog initiates a request and the rideshare company dispatches a driver that drives them, what "law" has been broken?


The ADA.


----------



## Humphrey (Aug 18, 2018)

I don't drive animals period. I'm not an Uber employee ... And Uber is not a transportation company. So I'm not obligated to drive around dogs, rats, pot bellied pigs etc.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> If a Passenger with a service dog initiates a request and the rideshare company dispatches a driver that drives them, what "law" has been broken?


Equal service. If a person without a service dog can get a ride in 3 minutes but a service animal takes 6, that's discrimination. There is no way for Uber to guarantee that using your system that there would be no delay. Naturally, if the person with disability only has 50% of drivers available to them, they will have a delay in service . That violates the ADA.



Humphrey said:


> I don't drive animals period. I'm not an Uber employee ... And Uber is not a transportation company. So I'm not obligated to drive around dogs, rats, pot bellied pigs etc.


Uber is not telling you to drive Service Animals, the Federal Government is. Uber is merely reiterating Federal Law that has been established to apply to you. ADA allows for individuals contractors to be sued and many disabled advocates love making an example out of people.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

GreatGooglyMoogly said:


> ** This. My wife's dog fetches her meds, opens doors, and (at my request) will get a water or a beer from the fridge.
> 
> ** LOL. Do you really think that this hasn't happed already? The ADA has faced countless court challenges and has withstood every one, because it is clearly constitutional.


Apparently they didn't have the correct people arguing the case then.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> The ADA.


Good catch, lol...


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Humphrey said:


> I don't drive animals period. I'm not an Uber employee ... And Uber is not a transportation company. So I'm not obligated to drive around dogs, rats, pot bellied pigs etc.


And you can be *personally* sued under the ADA. If that ever happens, you will lose.

You don't get sued because you're the driver. You get sued *because* you're an independent contractor.

Christine


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Christinebitg said:


> And you can be *personally* sued under the ADA. If that ever happens, you will lose.
> 
> You don't get sued because you're the driver. You get sued *because* you're an independent contractor.
> 
> Christine


Exactly


----------



## mmn (Oct 23, 2015)

Christinebitg said:


> ...
> You get sued *because* you're an *independent *contractor*.*


Kinda strange but I guess the word "independent" in this context means "solely liable"?...!


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Christinebitg said:


> And you can be *personally* sued under the ADA. If that ever happens, you will lose.
> 
> You don't get sued because you're the driver. You get sued *because* you're an independent contractor.
> 
> Christine


And what these people fail to understand is that when you violate the ADA, it is not the individual that sues you, it is the Justice Department.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Cary Grant (Jul 14, 2015)

I'd love to be on the jury if the INjustice department sued a citizen over some Bovine Scat ink on paper where compliance would enslave the citizen to perform work they don't want to do.

I guarantee a verdict for the innocent defendant. Not a hung jury, either. I'd send the patriot home free, and as I walked out I'd tell the prosecutor what I think of his genetic deficiencies.


----------



## mature423 (Dec 5, 2018)

Let's consider some crazy analogies and different situations.

What if a black guy who shitted his pants comes up to your car and explains what happened and asks if he can still take a ride in your car? Do you have the right to deny him or can he claim you're racist because you denied him due to him being black but the real reason was because he has feces all over his pants and would destroy your car?

What if you accept a ride and a muslim man with 10 tons of metal in scrap wants a ride and demands that you fit all that tons of scrap into your car for the ride? You deny him because you can't possibly fit that much weight of metals and accommodate that situation as it would blow out your suspension and wreck your car as well as getting 5 mpg. Does he get to claim you were discriminating against him because he was muslim even though it's the other belongings he demands to be loaded that is the issue?

How about a 900lb person in a motorized scooter that would need a van with a motorized ramp for the wheelchair and cannot fit in your small sedan? The fact that you cannot accommodate them, can they sue you for discriminating?

It's not so different. Some of us have no problem transporting the blind person alone but we have issues with the dog that may shit the car or shed hairs. Can we not say we are allergic to all pets (cats and dogs) and have the discretion to cancel those rides? We are not actually discriminating the blind person but the service dog which is the real issue. Many restaurants can have no pets allowed rules because of sanitary issues (even if some allow service dogs, they will lose customers for allowing it).


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Cary Grant said:


> I'd love to be on the jury if the INjustice department sued a citizen over some Bovine Scat ink on paper where compliance would enslave the citizen to perform work they don't want to do.


Good luck with that. I hope the situation never comes to pass for you.

There are lots of people who think that the police are always right. That the defendant wouldn't have been charged unless they're guilty. (Obviously I'm not one of them.)

Getting off from a criminal charge is not as simple as it sounds. And that's what it is. You can be sued by an individual for damages under ADA. And you can have a complaint via the government under ADA. But you don't actually get sued for damages by the feds in this instance.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

mature423 said:


> Let's consider some crazy analogies and different situations.
> 
> What if a black guy who shitted his pants comes up to your car and explains what happened and asks if he can still take a ride in your car?
> 
> ...


That is one of the purposes of a Dashcam. If you do not have one that comes off of its mount, simply take photographs or video with your telephone that shows the poo on the pants, the ten tons of scrap and the nine-hundred pound guy on a scooter.

As to the last, at some point, you will see a requirement that all vehicles be accessible. At the present, the TNCs are largely unregulated. As time passes, there will be more regulation. While Great Britain is, of course, not subject to the ADA, it does have its equivalent. In London, there currently is a one-hundred per-cent accessibility requirement for taxis. How long will it be until there is the same requirement
for TNC cars? Of course, at that point, Uber will have to start to pay current cab rates. One of the reasons that Uber has such difficulty signing up drivers for Uber WAV is that there are not many (if there are any) shops that will do conversion work for 1976 prices. Not too many people are going to pay 2018 prices so that they can collect 1976 cab rates.

VIA solves the problem of exposure in this market by contracting with cab drivers just to be out there and available. It pays the driver a flat twenty dollars per hour for an eight hour shift. The driver can run all the cab jobs that he wants, but must cover any accessible demand. VIA does understand that there might be a delay if the driver is thirty miles from the point of the request when he receives it.



> Some of us have no problem transporting the blind person alone but we have issues with the dog that may shit the car or shed hairs. Can we not say we are allergic to all pets (cats and dogs) and have the discretion to cancel those rides?


The properly trained and genuine service animals do not relieve themselves in your car.
No, you can not have that discretion, as the law is currently written. Even if you are allergic, as the law is currently written, you must haul the service animal.

One of the problems inherent to all laws that seek to rectify past wrongs is that they tend to place undue burdens on everyone else. Of course, there are some elements of our society, including some who have posted to this topic who see nothing wrong with that. In fact, there are some who have posted to this topic who believe that not only should we accept this because (***Cue up _*basso profondo*_ voice) "IT'S THE LAW" (a favourite pronouncement of those people--until there is some law that is not "convenient" to them), but we should like it. Unfortunately for them, Hillary did not win, so we do not have to like it, we even can still disagree with it, but we do have to do it.

The "allergy is no excuse" business places an undue hardship on the allergic person. Why should he have to tear up, sneeze and his vision become so foggy that he can not see well enough to control the vehicle? Why should he be denied the driving occupation because of this? In The Capital of Your Nation, a guy who is on crutches can get a hack licence. There is a requirement that cab drivers must help to load foldable wheelchairs, walkers or the like and assist the users of those devices into the cab. Everyone understands that the guy on crutches can not do that. He is exempted from that requirement.

As far as the dog hair goes, it is no problem in the cab. I have rubber floors and vinyl covered seats. A Dustbuster™, something that I have carried for years, makes short work of the hair. The UberX car has carpet floors and cloth seats. I would cover them, except that I can not find a shop that will do the work for 1976 prices. Sometimes, the Dustbuster™ will pick up the dog hair. Sometimes, it will not. This means that I must find somewhere that has a large vacuum cleaner that actually works. I must then pay that vacuum cleaner. I must spend the time (READ: money) finding the place and cleaning up after this person's dog. That will wipe out a minimum trip as well as one that pays slightly more. It is not fair to me that I should have to transport this person for what is essentially, my bottom line, zero dollars. Of course, there are some people who think that not only SHOULD I have to do this , but I should have to like it, because (***Cue up _*basso profondo*_ voice) "IT'S THE LAW".

I have no problem accommodating these people. I do have a problem with: A. one person's disability arbitrarily trumping another's and B. my not being adequately compensated for doing so.



> Many restaurants can have no pets allowed rules because of sanitary issues (even if some allow service dogs, they will lose customers for allowing it).


The restaurants and grocery stores have allowed service animals for years. Even back in the 1960s, there was a note at the bottom of the *NO DOGS ALLOWED* sign that read *Except guide dogs for the blind

The customers of the restaurants who did not like the policy of allowing the legitimate service animals have been few. As for the allergic, the restaurant almost always will seat them somewhere that is not close to the service dog, if the customer requests it.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

mature423 said:


> Let's consider some crazy analogies and different situations.
> 
> What if a black guy who shitted his pants comes up to your car and explains what happened and asks if he can still take a ride in your car? Do you have the right to deny him or can he claim you're racist because you denied him due to him being black but the real reason was because he has feces all over his pants and would destroy your car?
> 
> ...


I don't think you understand the concept well

If you accept trips from one group with crap all over their pants, you must accept all groups. If you don't accept any, you're good.

A 900 lbs man has no reasonable expectation he will fit in any car without radical modification. You are not required to do such (IMO).

This is really not that hard. Treat others as you would want to be treated if you were in their shoes.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

mature423 said:


> Let's consider some crazy analogies and different situations.
> 
> What if a black guy who shitted his pants comes up to your car and explains what happened and asks if he can still take a ride in your car? Do you have the right to deny him or can he claim you're racist because you denied him due to him being black but the real reason was because he has feces all over his pants and would destroy your car?
> 
> ...


No you ccannot. It is written in the law that allergies is not exempt. The Dog is no longer just a dog if its trained at a task for the disabled. Part of that training is to be nearly invisible. A real service animal will not shit or piss in your car. It might shed, it can't control that but shedding can be charged a cleaning fee.


Cary Grant said:


> I'd love to be on the jury if the INjustice department sued a citizen over some Bovine Scat ink on paper where compliance would enslave the citizen to perform work they don't want to do.
> 
> I guarantee a verdict for the innocent defendant. Not a hung jury, either. I'd send the patriot home free, and as I walked out I'd tell the prosecutor what I think of his genetic deficiencies.


Good ol jury nullification. Too bad most cases of this nature wouldnt be a jury trial.

There are not many laws I agree with, and while this one is pretty far reaching, I agree on one main issue: disabled need protection from people exactly like many on this thread. There is a reason the law is so strict. Most of the ADA sucks, especially when it costs businesses billions of dollars, but service animal discrimination is real.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

steveK2016 said:


> There are not many laws I agree with, and while this one is pretty far reaching, I agree on one main issue: disabled need protection from people exactly like many on this thread. There is a reason the law is so strict. Most of the ADA sucks, especially when it costs businesses billions of dollars, but service animal discrimination is real.


As a former cab dispatcher I used to have to deal with cab drivers who:

........were "allergic" to dogs, except for the regular customer who was blind, had a dog and who tipped five dollars on an eight dollar fare.

........were "allergic" to dogs except for dogs who were going to Dulles Airport. (a good fare)

........had a "bad back" in the case of the regular with the fold-up wheelchair but had no trouble lifting suitcases to go to Dulles Airport.
(D.C. Law always has required drivers to accommodate things such as walkers and "foldable wheelchairs that will fit into the trunk", although it has exempted drivers who could prove that they were physically unable to lift a wheelchair into the trunk, such as drivers on crutches).

People like that do need the proverbial foot in the behind. On the other hand, the driver who can not deal with that due to a physical disability should have a way out. Of course, this would mean that he is unable to accommodate under all conditions. Further, if he can not lift a wheelchair, he can not lift suitcases. In many cases, the customer can load his own suitcases, and, many able bodied drivers out there refuse to help with the suitcases. If, however, Uber were to put into the "order form" a field for special instructions, and, one of the choices was "need help", the driver who can not lift a foldable wheelchair would not receive that request, either.

My way of dealing with drivers like that was that I did not give them trips to Dulles Airport. When they complained, I used to ask them about their "bad back" that precluded their lifting a foldable wheelchair........................oh, so that must mean suitcases, as well.

The application actually does need a field for "Special Pick Up Instructions" for several reasons; not just this.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> As a former cab dispatcher I used to have to deal with cab drivers who:
> 
> ........were "allergic" to dogs, except for the regular customer who was blind, had a dog and who tipped five dollars on an eight dollar fare.
> 
> ...


A cab company can easily do this. Send John instead of Steve. There's no difference to how long the customer waits, or, at least, that can be proven.

If Uber puts this in the app, it can be proven, and used against them.

And where do these drivers think the disabled are so stupid as to not know when they're being discriminated against? They're just as sensitive to it as every other minority or oppressed or "invisible" demographic. SMH


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

SuzeCB said:


> A cab company can easily do this. Send John instead of Steve. There's no difference to how long the customer waits, or, at least, that can be proven.
> 
> If Uber puts this in the app, it can be proven, and used against them.


That plays well on paper, but, in reality it neither did nor does.

Back in the voice days, you had the calls written on tickets. The time that the call was received was noted. When the dispatcher assigned the call, he stamped the ticket. When some companies went to computer assisted, the time of reception and dispatch was recorded automatically.

These days, there is no dispatch, in most cases. There is electronic call assignment. The way that it is done is not dissimilar to how the TNCs do it. In fact, the cab hailing applications, including Uber Taxi (where available) do it the same way.

You actually could prove it, back then. I fought a couple of cases for my company in front of the D.C. Human Rights Office. I won all of them. Of course, I had a lawyer. You NEVER go to a D.C. Government proceeding without one. In fact, I won a case specifically over this. It was back in the day when the D.C. Government actually did accept allergies as an excuse, despite the ADA's requirements to the contrary. The complainant subpoenaed the dispatch records. The complainant was blind, had a dog, and, in fact, used our company frequently. She missed an event on Capitol Hill because the first driver could not take her dog due to an allergy. We sent another cab, immediately. She waited no more than three minutes longer. Further, it turned out that she was late even before she put in the initial call. I pointed this out to our lawyer, who pointed it out to the tribunal.

D.C. subscribes to something called "substantial compliance". As she did get another cab in less than five minutes after the first driver declined to carry her, the tribunal cited that, among other things, as a reason for throwing out the complaint. She waited less than ten minutes total for the cab that would carry her. The D.C. Government did not consider a ten minute wait for a cab unreasonable.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> That plays well on paper, but, in reality it neither did nor does.
> 
> Back in the voice days, you had the calls written on tickets. The time that the call was received was noted. When the dispatcher assigned the call, he stamped the ticket. When some companies went to computer assisted, the time of reception and dispatch was recorded automatically.
> 
> ...


But when the Pax can see the car & plate & driverdriving past.....


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

SuzeCB said:


> But when the Pax can see the car & plate & driverdriving past.....


I do not discount the exposure of the TNCs. The cab companies had similar exposure. There are all sorts of hypothetical incidents that can trigger action. The car that matches the description given to the customer is one such occurrence. A customer who knows that he put in an order first but gets his ride second or third is another.

I had to fight several of the last type before regulators on behalf of my company. I won every one of those, as well. Here is one.

We had a call at a hospital emergency room for a woman going to a very rough part of the city. Add to that the trip was unprofitable for a driver. The people who lived in those neighbourhoods knew that no driver wanted to go there. About ten minutes after that, a call came in from the same place for a woman who rode our cabs at least three times daily. Five minutes after that, a call came in that was going to a nice, safe neighbourhood. I was actually on the microphone when it happened. It was busy that afternoon; Sunday, the Redskins were playing, no drivers, you get the idea.

I sent a cab for the regular, first. As soon as my driver fetched the regular, he told me that the lady going to the bad neighbourhood had pitched a hissy at him. She called me demanding to know why she did not get her cab first. I told her that this was because I dispatched the calls that way, and, if she wanted my job, she could demonstrate to the Company Officials (of which I was one), that she could do it better than could I, but, meanwhile, the longer she kept me on the telephone, the longer it was going to take me to get her a cab. Meanwhile, another call had come in at a house in that neighbourhood that would go with the call at that hospital that was going to the safe neighbourhood. I paired them together; had the driver get the house, then go to the hospital emergency. (We did not have meters, back then, we had zones, so you could double and triple up, as the fares were set.) Not only did she call me back, but the hospital people called me back and demanded to know why she did not get her cab first. I told all of them not to tell me how to run my business. Finally, I did get her a cab. I made sure to call the hospital desk to let them know that her cab was on the way. The driver got there. She was gone. I had the driver get the name of the desk person.

Sure enough, there was trouble. I explained to my Board what had happened, and they agreed with me. The Taxicab Commission called my company to account for itself. I had my ducks in a row. I went down there, I read the letter from the woman. She called us all kinds or racists and discrimination and prejudice and you name it. The lady who got her cab first, the regular, was black, too. I carried six months worth of call slips from this woman into that Commission's offices and set them on the desk. I told the Administrator that THIS was why she got her cab first. It is called a "sound business reason". I was taking care of a regular customer. I had the second pair of call slips. She could not have ridden with those other two. Finally, I had the call slip for when I did send her a cab and a description of what happened and who was on duty when my driver got there and she was not there. The Administrator assured me that it never would get to a hearing. It never did..

My point is that I have been down that road and more than a few parallel ones and all of more than once. If anyone knows anything about discrimination complaints in the transportation business, it is I. I know how to fight them, as well..


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I do not discount the exposure of the TNCs. The cab companies had similar exposure. There are all sorts of hypothetical incidents that can trigger action. The car that matches the description given to the customer is one such occurrence. A customer who knows that he put in an order first but gets his ride second or third is another.
> 
> I had to fight several of the last type before regulators on behalf of my company. I won every one of those, as well. Here is one.
> 
> ...


In all of these scenarios, the company that got the request and dispatched the drivers is the one controlling the information and covering the drivers' backs.

U/L have even more to lose than a local cab company, and have already been down this road as well, in the US and other countries. They settled before they could lose, and will now not do a cover up to protect the drivers.

Maybe YOU could represent yourself and win. Maybe. The overwhelming majority of drivers could not, and the cost for an attorney would be immense. Especially since Uber would be subpoenaed to supply the records showing the dispatch, time and location of the driver and the Pax when the ride was cancelled, etc.

Driver would be swinging in the wind.

A smart TNC driver, even if otherwise a total tool devoid of all compassion and a complete psychopath, would take the *legit* SA and just keep it moving.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

SuzeCB said:


> In all of these scenarios, the company that got the request and dispatched the drivers is the one controlling the information and covering the drivers' backs.


Actually, the company was covering its own behind as the company was named in the complaints. The agencies involved required the company to mount the defence.. There was no proceeding against the driver, alone. In the case of the allergic driver and the blind woman who was late before she started, both driver and company were named and required to mount a defence. The company included the driver in the defence that it mounted for convenience sake. It was clear from the outset, in the latter case, that the D.C. Human Rights Office intended to take severe action against the Company rather than the driver. If the Human Rights Office intended to do anything to the driver, it appeared that it would be more like referring it to the then-Taxicab Commission.



> U/L have even more to lose than a local cab company, and have already been down this road as well, in the US and other countries. They settled before they could lose, and will now not do a cover up to protect the drivers.


I would never expect the TNCs to protect the drivers unless it were convenient for them to do so. In the latter case with my company, the easiest way out was to show that the driver was allergic, as D.C. was, at the time, accepting this as an excuse, despite the provisions of the ADA. We could have demonstrated that it was the driver's fault, and not the company's, as we had policies in place and forms that they signed that stated that they were aware of the laws and would follow them. Finally, the Hack Office had issued this driver a hack licence, thus, he had to know the laws. You do not get a hack licence if you do not pass the test. The test asks questions about the laws, including the ADA. We had that line of defence ready, but did not need it, as, once the driver provided the medical documentation, they dismissed the complaint.

This was in the early days of the politicians and regulators' working to hold cab companies responsible for their drivers. The drivers were independent contractors, similar to what the TNC drivers are to-day. What was happening was that the companies were using this to duck any responsibility for miscreant drivers. At times, there would be legal action, the company would get out of it and a judgment would be rendered against the driver. The driver, of course, had nothing, so, this person that the courts had designated a "victim" had no means of recovery. The lawyers contribute heavily to politicians, so, they pushed to have the companies held responsible. This is not far off for the TNCs. Eventually, the politicians are going to pass laws that specifically hold the TNCs responsible for miscreant drivers. At this point, the TNCs might actually favour law enforcement background checks. Ask me why I suspect this.

The TNCs have most of their money offshore and out of the reach of US courts. Still, there are a few millions here or there on which a US lawyer could get his hands. The cab companies, here at least, are and were a different story. Even before Uber, most cab companies here had thin balance sheets. In fact, given the choice between the balance sheet of a D.C.. cab company in the late twentieth or early twenty first centuries or that of a Colorado short line in the 1930s, I would take the Colorado railroad's all day every day. There were two exceptions, one of which owes its financier down to the fourth generation. As do the TNCs, those two companies did buy off any action taken against them.



> Maybe YOU could represent yourself and win. Maybe. The overwhelming majority of drivers could not, and the cost for an attorney would be immense.


Perhaps where you are, the cost of a lawyer for this would be prohibitive. Here, we have one or two lawyers who specialise in this sort of thing. They are inexpensive. Do keep in mind that when discussing lawyers, "inexpensive" _*is*_ a relative term. Despite that, the cost of one of those lawyers is far less than what it would wind up costing a driver if here were found liable in any action. Even if the driver is found liable, these lawyers can have the penalty mitigated substantially. In fact, the driver's tax accountant might let him write off the expense for the lawyer, but, the driver would have to consult his accountant to make sure, as the accountant would be qualified to give that advice. I am not an accountant or tax professional, so I can not give that advice.

I would NOT represent myself in such a proceeding. I would go to one of the aformentioned lawyers.



> A smart TNC driver, even if otherwise a total tool devoid of all compassion and a complete psychopath, would take the *legit* SA and just keep it moving.


Of course, the easiest way out of it is simply to do it. Not everyone does that. The law does not allow for allergies as an excuse. The law heavily favours the person with the dog and falls only several millimeters short of actively encouraging abuse of the law. In some cases, the local government agencies DO actively encourage abuse of that, and, other laws that are supposed to "protect" certain groups. Some of them, as do some posters to this topic, think that the providers should be ECSTATIC about being abused by these people, let alone their having to suffer the consequences of having their disability trumped by someone who actually does have a legitimate need for the animal. They also think that the provider should be ECSTATIC about having to suffer the monetary losses that providing this service entails, at times.

I do not mind providing the service, as long as I can be compensated properly for it.

The loss can be absorbed in the cab, as the time required to take a Dustbuster™ to dog hair on vinyl covered seats and rubber floors is minimal. . My accountant let me deduct the cost of the Dustbuster™. Any driver who buys one for the purpose of keeping his car clean should ask his accountant if he can deduct the cost of one, as the accountant is qualified to give the tax advice that I am not.

In the Uber car, it is different. It takes a long time to get the dog hair out of cloth covered seats and carpeted floors with a Dustbuster™, if, in fact, it will come out completely. At times, you must go to a gasolene station that has one of those large vacuum cleaners. That takes time (READ: money). This, of course, passes over the not unlikely possibility that you might have to go to two or three gasolene stations until you find a vacuum cleaner that actually works. Neither the TNCs nor the governments provide any subsidy to me to compensate me for this time. What is funny is that these same governments will make available all kinds of funds for people and companies who specialise in transporting the handicapped and those who use service animals, but make no funds available to subsidise drivers affiliated with TNCs, limousine or cab companies.

Why do I not have the seats and floors covered in the Uber car? If I can find a shop that will do that for 1976 prices, I will have them covered. Uber and Lyft are paying only 1976 cab rates, so I can afford to spend only 1976 dollars on the Uber car. If Uber and Lyft want to subsidise the work or pay me extra for providing the service, I can bank the payment until I have sufficient funds to have the work done. The TNCs, the regulators and politicians seem to forget conveniently that it costs money to deliver a service and that the capitalistic economic system under which we operate demands that the customer pay that cost, in addition to all other costs.


----------



## mature423 (Dec 5, 2018)

BigRedDriver said:


> I don't think you understand the concept well
> 
> If you accept trips from one group with crap all over their pants, you must accept all groups. If you don't accept any, you're good.


So if I don't accept any passengers with dogs/cats, I'm good. That is your reasoning btw.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

mature423 said:


> So if I don't accept any passengers with dogs/cats, I'm good. That is your reasoning btw.


Nope. You obviously don't understand civil rights.

You want them to fit your needs, not the needs of the protected class.

By all means, do whatever you think fits your needs best.

I'm sure the Justice Department will just look the other way.

OBTW. If you take a white man with crap on his pants, but refuse a black man with crap on his pants. You have discriminated.

Play these stupid games all you want. It's not me that will be selling all my assets to prove a point. That will be you.

But I do wish you all the luck in the world. You're gonna need it.


----------



## mature423 (Dec 5, 2018)

BigRedDriver said:


> Nope. You obviously don't understand civil rights.
> 
> You want them to fit your needs, not the needs of the protected class.
> 
> ...


I love how you refuse to defend your own reasoning. I guess all you can do is wag your finger and the scary things that might happen if anyone ever breaks the law! Never jaywalk across the street to your parked car near your home! Never drive a single mph over the speed limit! Good luck proving some random uber driver intentionally avoided you and didn't see you. Good luck proving I cancelled because you were with a service dog, sorry I had to use the restroom or would poop my pants!


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

mature423 said:


> Good luck proving I cancelled because you were with a service dog


I think you're under estimating the seriousness of such a complaint.


----------



## Humphrey (Aug 18, 2018)

So sue me then ... I don't give a damn. I'm not in the business of transporting animals. Sorry.

I've refused to drive dogs on at least 3 occasions. ( None of them service animals. Just idiots with dogs. ) Haven't been sued yet.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

mature423 said:


> Good luck proving I cancelled because you were with a service dog,


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/


Christinebitg said:


> I think you're under estimating the seriousness of such a complaint.


What he fails to understand, in addition, is that when you bring protected classes, civil rights and discrimination into court cases, several things occur. The main thing, in reference to his quote, is the doctrine of "burden-shifting". The oversimplifaction of it is that once the complainant/plaintiff establishes a case of discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the accused that he did not discriminate.

In short, this means that Mr. Doggie Haver will not be required to prove that Mr. Mature discriminated against him because of the doggie; marry, Mr. Mature will be required to prove that he did NOT discriminate because of the bow-wow.

I will argue in another post at another time the merits of burden shifting and why I disagree with it so vehemently, but, it is on the books. No one is required to like, not Y-E-T, at least, but, it is in force.



mature423 said:


> sorry I had to use the restroom or would poop my pants!


That never has worked as an excuse. Ask me how I know this.



Humphrey said:


> So sue me then ... I don't give a damn. I'm not in the business of transporting animals. Sorry.
> 
> I've refused to drive dogs on at least 3 occasions. ( None of them service animals. Just idiots with dogs. ) Haven't been sued *yet*.


(emphasis added)

The emphasised word is the operative word, here.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

mature423 said:


> I love how you refuse to defend your own reasoning. I guess all you can do is wag your finger and the scary things that might happen if anyone ever breaks the law! Never jaywalk across the street to your parked car near your home! Never drive a single mph over the speed limit! Good luck proving some random uber driver intentionally avoided you and didn't see you. Good luck proving I cancelled because you were with a service dog, sorry I had to use the restroom or would poop my pants!


I used to be that naive. Until I took ADA compliance courses and listened to several cases in which the accused lost everything because of principle.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> If you learn the law, you know there is. Observation of the dog's behavior, and the two questions. That will weed out almost all of the fakes, and the ones it doesn't won't be a problem for you, so so what?
> 
> Most of the people who are claiming that their emotional support animals are actually service animals are doing so in ignorance. There are a lot of companies that can be accessed on the internet that will help you get your animal registered as either. The problem is, there's no actual registry for a real service animal. None for an emotional support animal, either. With an emotional support animal, the only benefit a person gets is to be able to take them on airplanes, and be able to have them in apartments or in hotels when they're traveling. Uber and Lyft do not force you to take emotional support animals, although when a passenger complains, they're always going to call that ESA a service animal. It's up to you to point out to Uber or Lyft that you did not deny a service animal, and point out your observations of the animal's behavior and the two questions that were asked and the responses that were given. Uber will not look at any dash cam footage you have if you try to submit it through the app or offer it to someone that you're speaking to on the phone. You would have to go into a Greenlight hub and have one of the service reps there look at it and forward the information up the line.
> 
> ...


You rang?  Yes, I can confirm that drivers can have a service dog. I would let Uber/Lyft know you have it (while you may not be required to do this, it's a good idea as if they do get a complaint they can just ignore it pretty much). You are required to be able to have all your 4 seats available, so if it's like a great dane or something, that could be problematic hehe. They will not adjust ratings based on the dog, so if someone complains and 1 stars you for it, you're kind of on your own. Oh, and you're still required to accept a service dog if someone has one (actually there is a benefit to this as real service dogs will ignore each other while the faker dog is going nuts, which makes it easy to refuse lol). If it's a real service dog, usually the pax can tell (just like we can) by the behavior and I had very few problems with it (got quite a few compliments on her actually). The few times anyone was upset or said they had allergies I offered to cancel, do not charge for them (I made it sound like it was a favor for them, but really it keeps them from being able to rate me poorly, so it was in my best interest really). I only ever got one formal complaint about it from someone who I didn't even charge, and Uber just told me about the complaint and took no action on it (as they knew I had the dog).


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> You rang?  Yes, I can confirm that drivers can have a service dog. I would let Uber/Lyft know you have it (while you may not be required to do this, it's a good idea as if they do get a complaint they can just ignore it pretty much). You are required to be able to have all your 4 seats available, so if it's like a great dane or something, that could be problematic hehe. They will not adjust ratings based on the dog, so if someone complains and 1 stars you for it, you're kind of on your own. Oh, and you're still required to accept a service dog if someone has one (actually there is a benefit to this as real service dogs will ignore each other while the faker dog is going nuts, which makes it easy to refuse lol). If it's a real service dog, usually the pax can tell (just like we can) by the behavior and I had very few problems with it (got quite a few compliments on her actually). The few times anyone was upset or said they had allergies I offered to cancel, do not charge for them (I made it sound like it was a favor for them, but really it keeps them from being able to rate me poorly, so it was in my best interest really). I only ever got one formal complaint about it from someone who I didn't even charge, and Uber just told me about the complaint and took no action on it (as they knew I had the dog).


Welcome back kid


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I've owned a variety of businesses as well as ran a few for others.
> 
> If I know a customer is coming in that has some special need they like accommodated and my staff of 20 has 16 people that will willingly accommodate that need and 4 that will @@@@@ and moan and possibly not provide them the service they deserve I simply direct 1 of the 16 to serve them.
> 
> ...


Sure, if you're willing to have your business (you're an independent contractor, so YOU not Uber would have to provide the other driver) pay for another driver to follow you around on the off chance you might get a service dog so they can get in that car instead, you go right on with your bad self. Most of us couldn't afford to do that (let alone would have the desire to). They'd have to follow you constantly because you'd have to be able to provide them the alternate without much of a delay. I wish you luck with that.... 

The reason the idea that many people come up with about "let's just have a flag we can turn on if we're willing to accept" won't work is, aside from the obvious degrade in service when half of them unflag, is that how would you know? Let's say, just for the sake of argument that it was suddenly legal for Uber to say "tick the flag if you are willing to take pets" and like half the drivers tick it and half don't. Ok, so you didn't tick yours because you don't want pets. Then you get my ping, and when you get there, it's me and my service dog. Service dogs aren't pets. The pax aren't required to notify you that they have a service dog, because it's a protected class. The pax don't have to notify you that they are a woman (or man), they don't have to notify you that they are black (or white), they don't have to notify you that they are gay (or straight), that's what MAKES it a protected class.

I don't notify drivers that I have a service dog. I also don't notify hotels, or really anywhere else unless I need a specific accommodation there, and they need to know to make it happen (planes for example, I'll notify planes because I request bulkhead seating). I purposely don't notify (and many handlers are the same) because of discrimination issues. So now that you have shown up and there I am, then what? Your solution is you should get to discriminate against me? The law is written the way it is for a reason. People way smarter than you (or I) debated it for quite some time and thought about all the ins and outs, and the ways people would try to get around it. They purposely spelled out some things (like allergies, religious reasons, and fear not being valid excuses), precisely because people try to use those excuses to discriminate.

Stop thinking about only yourself and open your mind up to a bigger, wider world. Think about both sides of the issue. Is it really taking actual service dogs that you are concerned with, or is it the fact that people fake them and you are worried that a fake dog will mess up your car? If that is your real issue, then focus on that, what can you do about it? Well, you can ask the 2 questions, and use behavior as a guide. You can record the answers and the behavior. When you do find a fake, you can notify Uber/Lyft first. In some states you could even call the cops (if you're sure it's a fake) and press charges on them for faking a service animal. Get out of the victim mentality, and start thinking larger picture.



Another Uber Driver said:


> The airlines are starting to do something about it, but airlines have money to pay high powered lawyers. You can barely pay your rent on the 1976 cab rates that you are collecting.


^^^^^ This

And even the airlines aren't getting it quite right. Delta is being filed against and frankly, I'm sure enough that they will lose, I'd bet my car on it. While the ESA stuff they are doing is probably ok (pushing the limit, but probably ok), the pit bull ban (especially on actual service dogs) is not. I'm not sure what their attorneys were thinking, but case law is WAY against them on this one. They actually refused an actual service dog (not ESA) that is a pit bull and the handler is filling. It won't get to court for many more months yet (case is pending for August, if it gets that far, my money says they settle before then). So when you suddenly see them lift their pit bull ban (which I'm sure they will do much more quietly than they announced it), you'll know why. 



Christinebitg said:


> Because that's what the law says.
> 
> Why it says that may be open to question. The fact that it DOES say that is incontrovertible.


Why is simple. Until they develop a pill that restores sight, it makes more sense for the person with an allergy to take a Claritin than it does to tell the blind person to stay home. This goes doubly for Uber/Lyft because, it's not like the blind person can just drive themselves around.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Claritin is not effective in every case. In addition, some people can not use Claritin.


There are other options. The core point is that some disabilities are more disabling than others. Even within the allergy world, there are people who everyone loves to pretend to be (but I think everyone would hate to actually be), who will actually have a severe reaction to dog hair/dander. Those people are disabled and shouldn't drive, not just because of service dogs (yes I've seen your points about 95%) but because the hair that just plain pet owners have on their clothing would trigger them when they are that allergic. It sucks, but they wouldn't be able to be a driver at all because of it (not because of "5% of the time", but pet owners are everywhere, way more than 5% of their riders would have pet dander on them). They are simply disabled. I'd like to be a cop, but alas, that's not in my future either. Only about 15% of people have dog allergies, and of those, less than 1% are severe. Likewise, a blind person is more disabled when it comes to transportation than even I am (I can, at least, drive myself if I need to).

In the world we live in, we all wind up inconveniencing each other on a pretty regular basis as it is. People have forgotten that politeness and respect can get you much farther in life. If people would learn to just be respectful to each other, most of these issues we could work out among ourselves. However, this day and age, people have gotten too far into the selfishness of it all.



steveK2016 said:


> Even a 30 second delay will expose them to lawsuit. Disabled people cannot recieve less than the services of non-disabled: that is discrimination. If drivers have an option to prevent dogs in thejr car, most will do it.
> 
> By law, uber cannot make a system like you are describing. Uber didnt want to be subject to ADA law, they tried to fight it but ended up settling knowing they would lose.


^^^^ This

Remember separate but equal? So the black person has to walk an extra 50 feet, so what, he'll still get some water from his fountain... Yeah.. that doesn't fly anymore (it shouldn't have back then either). That's effectively what having drivers "opt in" would be.. "Just wait for one of the disabled cars, this car is only for the able bodied..." It actually amazes me that so few people can see this obvious truth.



Cary Grant said:


> For all the somnambulant serf/slaves, bootlickers, and statists/statheists that wax off about "the law" -- you have _collectively _(no pun intended) failed to see the forrest of scofflaws for the trees of your virtue signaling.
> 
> In a market of over 8 million, with almost 14,000 rides completed, including hundreds of pickups at places that employ the blind, vision impaired, and otherwise handicapped, I've yet to see the FIRST legitimate service animal.
> 
> ...


The problem isn't the ADA really, the problem is the people of poor moral character that are willing to fake a service animal (and in turn fake a disability). It's the same as someone able bodied climbing into a wheel chair and telling people they can't walk. The ADA simply ensures the rights of those who have legitimate disabilities. Those who fake it are scum who deserve a special level a hell for them. IF someone came into your store with a wheel chair, you wouldn't question if they needed the wheel chair, you wouldn't try to kick them out because they had a wheel chair, right? It's supposed to be the same with service dogs. They did fail to anticipate the number of people who would try to fake a disability (because what kind of a waste of skin does that?!?). At some point they will probably have to do something about the fakers (personally I could support a well thought out and properly done ID system), but it takes time to work all that out (as not everyone agrees one what it well thought out and properly done). The ADA isn't the core problem though, it's the wastes of flesh that are willing to fake a disability that are the core problem.



JustTreatMeFair said:


> If a Passenger with a service dog initiates a request and the rideshare company dispatches a driver that drives them, what "law" has been broken?


Asked and answered.. They aren't required to let Uber/Lyft know they have a service animal (privacy / discrimination issues). Drivers aren't allowed to opt in (or out) anyway (degradation of service).



uberdriverfornow said:


> All you really need is for one person to stand up and say this law is @@@@ed up and take the fine and then appeal it and force congress to change it to allow for an "I don't want to die because I'm forced to take a service dog that I'm allergic to" exemption.


It's been tried, and has failed (multiple times actually, there is a reason the ADA now specifically states that allergies, religious objections, and fears are not valid reasons), please do your research first, thanks.



SuzeCB said:


> The ADA law was written, specifically, to guarantee the Constitutional rights of disabled people in a more clearly-defined way than the Constitution does. Service Animals are only one part of the law.
> 
> Here's the thing to consider... If it would be wrong to deny service to someone that wears glasses, it's wrong to deny a legit SA. From a legal standpoint, they're the same thing: medical equipment.
> 
> ...


Are you my long lost twin?!? 



Humphrey said:


> I don't drive animals period. I'm not an Uber employee ... And Uber is not a transportation company. So I'm not obligated to drive around dogs, rats, pot bellied pigs etc.


Rats, pot bellied pigs (although some humans may fit this description lol), etc aren't service animals. Only dogs, and in rare cases mini horses are. And the mini horses you won't have to take for space reasons. Dogs are all you'd have to worry about. Uber (and your own independent business) are public accommodations (this has already been long established, Uber already tried the whole "but they are private drivers" bit, and it failed them miserably). Therefore the ADA does apply to you (it's not Uber making you take them, it's the federal law). Fail to do so, and at best you'll just get deactivated. At worst you'll get slapped with an ADA lawsuit, a civil rights violation on your record, and depending on your state, possibly misdemeanor criminal charges. If you think that's all worth it, by all means, refuse the service dog (I love reading these case laws when the offender gets all defiant and gets slammed down hard, so I'd love to read your case too).



uberdriverfornow said:


> Apparently they didn't have the correct people arguing the case then.


ROFL, that may just be the single most arrogant thing I've ever heard. Ok, which case (there have been about 80 of them argued)? Which state's bar are you a member of, I'll pick one from that state and you can tell me how you would have argued it differently?



Christinebitg said:


> And you can be *personally* sued under the ADA. If that ever happens, you will lose.
> 
> You don't get sued because you're the driver. You get sued *because* you're an independent contractor.
> 
> Christine


This is true. Anyone with any sense would sue both you personally (not you Christine but "you" as in the person who refused), and Uber/Lyft (as Uber/Lyft is where the money is), but it's a good bet that Uber/Lyft will quickly say "we told him/her!! Look here are all the times they accepted that they were aware and would take it, and here is the warning we gave them, and here is our policy making it crystal clear this is unacceptable!" and distance themselves as far away from you as possible. Don't forget that in most states it's also a misdemeanor crime to refuse a service dog too. So anyone bothering to sue, would likely be advised by their attorney to also press charges (because it looks better in civil court if they have a guilty verdict from a criminal court on file). I'd absolutely advise anyone in that situation to press local charges too.



mature423 said:


> I love how you refuse to defend your own reasoning. I guess all you can do is wag your finger and the scary things that might happen if anyone ever breaks the law! Never jaywalk across the street to your parked car near your home! Never drive a single mph over the speed limit! Good luck proving some random uber driver intentionally avoided you and didn't see you. Good luck proving I cancelled because you were with a service dog, sorry I had to use the restroom or would poop my pants!


He (he being the service dog using pax) doesn't have to prove it, all he has to do is call in and allege it (and they'll give him $25 bux for his trouble too). Because you didn't talk with him, it will be considered a 1 warning (not a clear cut case), but then the second time it happens that pax will also be given $25 bucks and for you it's deactivation. Maybe you're telling the truth, maybe you're not. After 2 complaints for it, they simply can't take the chance, and you're just not important enough for them to.



Cableguynoe said:


> Welcome back kid


Thanks!!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Sure, if you're willing to have your business (you're an independent contractor, so YOU not Uber would have to provide the other driver) pay for another driver to follow you around on the off chance you might get a service dog so they can get in that car instead, you go right on with your bad self. Most of us couldn't afford to do that (let alone would have the desire to). They'd have to follow you constantly because you'd have to be able to provide them the alternate without much of a delay. I wish you luck with that....
> 
> The reason the idea that many people come up with about "let's just have a flag we can turn on if we're willing to accept" won't work is, aside from the obvious degrade in service when half of them unflag, is that how would you know? Let's say, just for the sake of argument that it was suddenly legal for Uber to say "tick the flag if you are willing to take pets" and like half the drivers tick it and half don't. Ok, so you didn't tick yours because you don't want pets. Then you get my ping, and when you get there, it's me and my service dog. Service dogs aren't pets. The pax aren't required to notify you that they have a service dog, because it's a protected class. The pax don't have to notify you that they are a woman (or man), they don't have to notify you that they are black (or white), they don't have to notify you that they are gay (or straight), that's what MAKES it a protected class.
> 
> ...


It's actually very simple. You tell the judge to their face that if you die from having to take a dog that you're allergic to, are they going to be responsible for your death. It's that simple.

If they say no, then you win.

If they say yes then they will be responsible, not legally but in a sense. If it comes to that then obviously it will have to change.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> the hair that just plain pet owners have on their clothing would trigger them when they are that allergic. It sucks, but they wouldn't be able to be a driver at all because of it (not because of "5% of the time", but pet owners are everywhere, way more than 5% of their riders would have pet dander on them).


This looks good on paper, but does not always play out empirically. (Ask me how I know this.)


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Are you my long lost twin?!?


Nah, just the mom of a disabled son who's had to advocate/fight-tooth-and-claw for him to get all of the accommodations he needed and was legally entitled to from a school district that, up until just a couple of years ago, tried to wriggle their way out of almost all of them.

For the record, every single person I went toe-to-toe with, from Board of Ed member down to floater/substitute lunch worker, is gone. Some less ceremoniously than others. I've been told that the rule in the Special Services Dept. of the district when I call is now, "Just give her what she wants. It'll be a painful battle otherwise, and she'll just end up getting it anyway."

We all get along quite nicely now, and I even bring them DD Munchkins from time to time. 

You should see what happens to cars I find illegally parked in Handicapped parking spots.....


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's actually very simple. You tell the judge to their face that if you die from having to take a dog that you're allergic to, are they going to be responsible for your death. It's that simple.
> 
> If they say no, then you win.
> 
> If they say yes then they will be responsible, not legally but in a sense. If it comes to that then obviously it will have to change.


They'll take that chance because you aint gonna die from a dog allergy doing Uber ..as many have said, if you are thar allergic, you'd have died many years ago already.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's actually very simple. You tell the judge to their face that if you die from having to take a dog that you're allergic to, are they going to be responsible for your death. It's that simple.
> 
> If they say no, then you win.
> 
> If they say yes then they will be responsible, not legally but in a sense. If it comes to that then obviously it will have to change.


Clearly you've never been inside a court room before. That's not quite how it works.



SuzeCB said:


> Nah, just the mom of a disabled son who's had to advocate/fight-tooth-and-claw for him to get all of the accommodations he needed and was legally entitled to from a school district that, up until just a couple of years ago, tried to wriggle their way out of almost all of them.
> 
> For the record, every single person I went toe-to-toe with, from Board of Ed member down to floater/substitute lunch worker, is gone. Some less ceremoniously than others. I've been told that the rule in the Special Services Dept. of the district when I call is now, "Just give her what she wants. It'll be a painful battle otherwise, and she'll just end up getting it anyway."
> 
> ...







It's awesome to find someone who takes advocacy as seriously as I do.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> They'll take that chance because you aint gonna die from a dog allergy doing Uber ..as many have said, if you are thar allergic, you'd have died many years ago already.


The people that would otherwise die from a dog in an Uber are clearly not going to be doing Uber. Case closed.



Pawtism said:


> Clearly you've never been inside a court room before. That's not quite how it works.


Incredible logic there. "I'm just going to say you've never been in a courtroom instead of using logic because I think I'm so smart but just got my ass handed to me in a paragraph versus the longwinded long drawn out post that was supposed to make me look smart but just made it look like I know how to write a great book report instead."

As usual common sense trumps arrogance.

And if you took advocacy as serious as you say you did you would be advocating on both sides of the equation.

pss. That is indeed how it works.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.
> 
> Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.
> 
> ...


Baby Aspirins ?


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Sure, if you're willing to have your business (you're an independent contractor, so YOU not Uber would have to provide the other driver) pay for another driver to follow you around on the off chance you might get a service dog so they can get in that car instead, you go right on with your bad self. Most of us couldn't afford to do that (let alone would have the desire to). They'd have to follow you constantly because you'd have to be able to provide them the alternate without much of a delay. I wish you luck with that....
> 
> The reason the idea that many people come up with about "let's just have a flag we can turn on if we're willing to accept" won't work is, aside from the obvious degrade in service when half of them unflag, is that how would you know? Let's say, just for the sake of argument that it was suddenly legal for Uber to say "tick the flag if you are willing to take pets" and like half the drivers tick it and half don't. Ok, so you didn't tick yours because you don't want pets. Then you get my ping, and when you get there, it's me and my service dog. Service dogs aren't pets. The pax aren't required to notify you that they have a service dog, because it's a protected class. The pax don't have to notify you that they are a woman (or man), they don't have to notify you that they are black (or white), they don't have to notify you that they are gay (or straight), that's what MAKES it a protected class.
> 
> ...


It was long, but definitely a good read.

Thank you for posting it. Just clicking "like" didn't seem to me to be enough of an appreciation. I appreciate the trouble you went to, to post all of it.

C


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

JimKE said:


> The *Americans with Disabilities Act.*
> 
> Which, incidentally, was *passed in 1990*...and has been the law of the land for 28+ years.





BigRedDriver said:


> The ADA.


I'm sorry. I disagree.

Rider requests a ride and a driver is dispatched that gives them a ride to their destination. Rider's needs are met. No damages exist to base any claim on.


----------



## jazzapt (May 16, 2016)

I dunno if anyone mentioned this cuz I didn't want to read through all 7 pages of an old thread. But I always felt the OP is on to something but with one caveat. Drivers would not be able to opt out. Instead drivers would be able to select from 3 levels:

Happy to take service animals
No problem with taking service animals
Would rather not take service animals
The algorithm would review who is available. If a "happy to take" is within reasonable distance, the ping goes to them. If not, it checks for "No problem". If there are no "happy to take" and "no problems" in within distance, a "would rather not take" gets the ping and has to take the ride.

This way the driver cannot opt out, and the rider gets the guaranteed ride by law. But it makes for smaller chance that those who don't want to take services animals get matched with one, and the rider gets a greater chance to be paired with someone who is more eager to transport them.

Since the law is over 20 years old, I would bet there is nothing in it that takes rideshare into account. And I bet there is also nothing that states Uber/Lyft cannot try and steer requests to those drivers who would prefer to take them.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Sure, if you're willing to.....
> 
> Thanks!!


Some people get so passionate over a cause they fail to read for context and only see what fuels their need to argue.

I have a dog. Recently I have acquired a service animal. Personally I have zero issue driving people with dogs providing they behave and/or the passenger cleans up after them. I have never told anyone needing a ride with a dog No.

I understand where the rideshare company could not ask anything about "service animals" in general with the current environment that exists. There is enough national attention lately that I believe there will come legislation to clarify as well as re-establish the rights of others that have been wrongfully impacted by legislation drafted in such a narrow fashion as the ADAs protection of owner's of service animals rights.

In the mean time.....

Adding a box _"Will you be traveling with an animal today?"_ with clarification in the TOS that any issues regarding mess damage or mess left behind in a driver's car can/will be charged for. "_Uber has arrangements with tens of thousands of animal loving drivers that will gladly provide you transportation to your required destination and if available, we will match your request with one from this group" _would facilitate the same result.

Companies offer female drivers to female passengers but a male passenger that might prefer a female driver cannot make the same request. Why is that not a similar issue? I would certainly request a female driver all the time if possible. I find female drivers to be more talkative and willing to share information about a city/destinations as well as less aggressive in their driving than male drivers.

Any improvement on a passenger's experience should be embraced.

I see none of the resistance here to the concept as legitimately based in a concern for legal issues. Some of you simply love to argue and be negative.

It's OK. It can be entertaining at times.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

jazzapt said:


> I dunno if anyone mentioned this cuz I didn't want to read through all 7 pages of an old thread. But I always felt the OP is on to something but with one caveat. Drivers would not be able to opt out. Instead drivers would be able to select from 3 levels:
> 
> Happy to take service animals
> No problem with taking service animals
> ...


Someone that gets it! Welcome to the discussion.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Some people get so passionate over a cause they fail to read for context and only see what fuels their need to argue.
> 
> I have a dog. Recently I have acquired a service animal. Personally I have zero issue driving people with dogs providing they behave and/or the passenger cleans up after them. I have never told anyone needing a ride with a dog No.
> 
> ...


Can we get an option to avoid black or Asian riders too? how about muslims or Jews ?

The law is to prevent discrimination.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I'm sorry. I disagree.
> 
> Rider requests a ride and a driver is dispatched that gives them a ride to their destination. Rider's needs are met. No damages exist to base any claim on.


If they give them the ride it is. If they refuse they broke the law.



jazzapt said:


> I dunno if anyone mentioned this cuz I didn't want to read through all 7 pages of an old thread. But I always felt the OP is on to something but with one caveat. Drivers would not be able to opt out. Instead drivers would be able to select from 3 levels:
> 
> Happy to take service animals
> No problem with taking service animals
> ...


Why do you think both services send notices to their drivers monthly?

It's probably part of a settlement


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Boca Ratman said:


> Can we get an option to avoid black or Asian riders too? how about muslims or Jews ?
> 
> The law is to prevent discrimination.


Here's what these posters fail to grasp.

These are civil rights laws.

A black man may not practice discrimination against another black man.

A Female can't practice discrimination against another Female.

A disabled individual cannot practice discrimination against another disabled person.

No need to overthink this, or blame those boogie men known as Uber/Lyft.

It is really pretty simple.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

jazzapt said:


> The algorithm would review who is available. If a "happy to take" is within reasonable distance, the ping goes to them.


How would the algorithm know if the pax had a service animal?


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Companies offer female drivers to female passengers but a male passenger that might prefer a female driver cannot make the same request. Why is that not a similar issue? I would certainly request a female driver all the time if possible. I find female drivers to be more talkative and willing to share information about a city/destinations as well as less aggressive in their driving than male drivers.
> .


Oh, I can answer that.
And, the answer is partially in your question. You make note that females are 'less aggressive' and more willing to 'share information.' Is that right? Really? Is that true of ALL men? Or only the ones who are not pussified 'men'. Ones that have not been neutered and tamed. 
So, these specialized services are offered only to female's because men are toxic. Dangerous. Misogynist, rapists, woman abusers, bullies. Every single one of us. 
Especially if they white and middle aged.
Everyone knows that, sheech.

Haven't you seen the Gillette commercial? (A company that markets to men.) Didn't you see the Kavanaugh tapes? Ask any Democrat politician .. especially far left, Cali or NY types.



BigRedDriver said:


> Here's what these posters fail to grasp.
> 
> These are civil rights laws.
> A black man may not practice discrimination against another black man.
> ...


You missed one group.
A Female *can *practice discrimination against a man.
A black man *can *practice discrimination against a white man.
A disabled person *can *practice discrimination against a white man.

At least in my state of Cali, it is legal and actually encouraged.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I'm sorry. I disagree.
> 
> Rider requests a ride and a driver is dispatched that gives them a ride to their destination. Rider's needs are met. No damages exist to base any claim on.


That would be a violation of the law. The rider would have damages because they would have to wait longer than someone who does not have a service animal.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The people that would otherwise die from a dog in an Uber are clearly not going to be doing Uber. Case closed.
> 
> Incredible logic there. "I'm just going to say you've never been in a courtroom instead of using logic because I think I'm so smart but just got my ass handed to me in a paragraph versus the longwinded long drawn out post that was supposed to make me look smart but just made it look like I know how to write a great book report instead."
> 
> ...


I stand by my statement, you've been watching a bit too much Judge Judy. Here's how it really works (since you seem to want it all spelled out for you). This is very simplified, but is the core of what would happen (if it went to court, realistically you'd be advised to settle way before then as any attorney worth their salt would inform you that you were almost certain to lose). The DOJ says (basically), "He refused to drive the dog, and doesn't even deny it. He doesn't dispute that it's a service dog, he was aware of the law, and Uber/Lyfts policies. He willfully discriminated anyway." You say (basically), "I'm allergic to dogs, so I couldn't take it." The DOJ says (basically), "Per the ADA, allergies are specifically spelled out as not being able to be used as affirmative defense, and here is the mountain of case law and precedent to back that up."

You say (basically, having no case law to back up your argument), "But... I'm allergic..." And either you make a ridiculous claim like you'll die and you better be able to back it up with medical evidence, in which case it gets debunked because anyone with allergies that serve would have bad reactions to the pet hair just carried around by people (and you wouldn't be able to drive anyway) and you're found in contempt of court (because federal judges don't screw around). Or, more likely, you go into a little rabbit hole about how you are a special snowflake, and even though allergies were specifically spelled out as not being a valid reason, somehow you are special so the mountain of case law and precedent shouldn't apply to you (which will make for great interoffice jokes at the DOJ later). To which the DOJ simply points to the mountain of case law and precedent and shakes their head disapprovingly like a Stanley Roberts intro (ok, I embellished a bit on that one lol).

In the end, the judge finds (because he has no choice, even if he feels bad for you personally, as he'd be admonished on appeal anyway) that you willfully discriminated against a disabled person, violated the ADA and fines you somewhere between $25,000 and $55,000 (depending on how much your rabbit hole diving affected him).

Bottom line, there is no way you win this. Is it fair? Perhaps not, we can debate all day long about if it's fair or not. Many here would say it's not fair. Some say that it's over protection, that the ADA has gone too far the other way. Personally, I do feel that it might be a bit overkill, but judging by some of the comments just on this forum alone and some of the lengths people are willing to go to just to intentionally discriminate, I still believe that over protection is needed. It would be nice if humanity could be decent enough to each other where it wasn't needed, but sadly, that's just not the world we live in (yet, maybe one day we won't need the protection so much). As long as people make "I'm allergic" their go to line, when they aren't, just to discriminate against a class of people, laws like the ADA will make things like allergies a non-affirmative defense. People who fake allergies just to intentionally discriminate are worse than people who fake service dogs (and those people are already pretty darn low on the moral scale).



JustTreatMeFair said:


> Some people get so passionate over a cause they fail to read for context and only see what fuels their need to argue.
> 
> I have a dog. Recently I have acquired a service animal. Personally I have zero issue driving people with dogs providing they behave and/or the passenger cleans up after them. I have never told anyone needing a ride with a dog No.
> 
> ...


Clearly you didn't read my post all the way through. Did you not notice the part that even if they were willing to add a check box as you describe, I'm under no obligation to check it (and frankly wouldn't). And who do you think you're fooling with the line "Any improvement on a passenger's experience should be embraced."? You don't give a darn about the pax experience anymore than Uber/Lyft does. You're looking for a way to discriminate against a class of people who use a service dog. Stop and think about what your arguments have been so far. You aren't saying we need to find a way to weed out the fakes. You're trying to find a way so that some drivers can't optionally discriminate. YOU (and those like you) are the reason the ADA does go a bit overboard, because it has to because of people like you.

I totally get not wanting to take fakes (I hate them more than even you probably do, as they are a threat to my independence). But guess what? Disabled people, especially people who use service dogs, tend to not have the same options you do. They can't just drive themselves, and HAVE to rely on Cabs, Uber, Lyft, etc. Their life is hard enough as it is, what kind of person goes out of their way to make it even harder for them? Stop and really think that through.

Put yourself in their position. You have epilepsy. You can not drive (because you've been medically disallowed). You can only go out in public if you have your service dog with you, to alert you of a seizure so you have a moment to find a safe spot (verses dropping in the middle of the damn street). You just want to get to... your doctors appointment.. the mall and try to be normal for a while.. dinner with your family.. whatever.. You order your Uber, and the jerk won't take you, because god forbid he might have to take 15 seconds to lay down a towel. You order another, and this one won't take you either. You're now late to your appointment as you order the third.. or the fourth.. or the fifth.. and pray that this one will finally take you. You try living like that, and see how you feel about it. That is exactly what you are proposing and is exactly why the ADA is written the way it is. Because you, as our epileptic, have the right to simply be picked up and taken like anyone else would be.



jazzapt said:


> I dunno if anyone mentioned this cuz I didn't want to read through all 7 pages of an old thread. But I always felt the OP is on to something but with one caveat. Drivers would not be able to opt out. Instead drivers would be able to select from 3 levels:
> 
> Happy to take service animals
> No problem with taking service animals
> ...


Ride share likely wasn't taken into account, but cabs have been from the beginning. Actually, ride share being taken into account would be very bad for Uber/Lyft (although it may happen at some point). You see, so far, they are skating by with not having to have x% of their fleet be handicap accessible (WAV, vans with lifts, etc). In part this is because no high profile suit has come yet (they have wisely worked with cab companies to have them fill in gaps in markets where this would be likely). Sooner or later, it will hit the fan somewhere though.

That being said, your idea of the 3 classes would be interesting in a perfect world. It could even be done with those who choose to disclose that they have a service animal. However, what they couldn't do is make anyone disclose it (they can't make those with service animals check off that they have one). So, even with your system, if I don't flag that I have a service animal, it will just dispatch whoever to me, and if it happens to be #3, well bad luck for them. One of the main reasons no one actually sets up a system like this, is that it would be far too much work for far too little gain (plus, there really isn't anything in it for Uber/Lyft, it's just extra hassles for them, plus introduces potential liability if #3 denies me, and they argue "but I selected that I'd rather not take service animals!" There is no upside to them, and it would only be effective for the ones who choose to check that they had a service animal (which many would not).

There is a reason that other industries (hotels, cabs, etc) don't do this either. It's just more stress with no gain. Let's be honest, you know if they did this, but the disabled didn't have to check it, we'd see a ton of threads about "why even bother having it if you can't make them use it!!"



BigRedDriver said:


> If they give them the ride it is. If they refuse they broke the law.
> 
> Why do you think both services send notices to their drivers monthly?
> 
> It's probably part of a settlement


It actually was part of Uber's settlement that they would notify the drivers, quarterly (which is why you get that popup every 3 months) about this. The benefit for them too, is that if a driver does refuse, they can distance themselves from the driver and throw them completely under the bus ("we told them to take it! It's not our fault they didn't!").


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> I stand by my statement, you've been watching a bit too much Judge Judy. Here's how it really works (since you seem to want it all spelled out for you). This is very simplified, but is the core of what would happen (if it went to court, realistically you'd be advised to settle way before then as any attorney worth their salt would inform you that you were almost certain to lose). The DOJ says (basically), "He refused to drive the dog, and doesn't even deny it. He doesn't dispute that it's a service dog, he was aware of the law, and Uber/Lyfts policies. He willfully discriminated anyway." You say (basically), "I'm allergic to dogs, so I couldn't take it." The DOJ says (basically), "Per the ADA, allergies are specifically spelled out as not being able to be used as affirmative defense, and here is the mountain of case law and precedent to back that up."
> 
> You say (basically, having no case law to back up your argument), "But... I'm allergic..." And either you make a ridiculous claim like you'll die and you better be able to back it up with medical evidence, in which case it gets debunked because anyone with allergies that serve would have bad reactions to the pet hair just carried around by people (and you wouldn't be able to drive anyway) and you're found in contempt of court (because federal judges don't screw around). Or, more likely, you go into a little rabbit hole about how you are a special snowflake, and even though allergies were specifically spelled out as not being a valid reason, somehow you are special so the mountain of case law and precedent shouldn't apply to you (which will make for great interoffice jokes at the DOJ later). To which the DOJ simply points to the mountain of case law and precedent and shakes their head disapprovingly like a Stanley Roberts intro (ok, I embellished a bit on that one lol).
> 
> ...


Clearly you've never heard oral arguments being given in a Supreme Court case.

I'll just leave this right here again.






But clearly the Supreme Court has it all wrong when they hear oral arguments. lmao


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> No damages exist to base any claim on.


That's not what this law says.

Look, I get it. Most situations require actual, for real monetary damages. I have lived with a civil trial lawyer for 12 years.

But ** this law is different. **

It does NOT require that. It legislates that there are *statutory* damages in this situation. All you have to do to be liable for them is to refuse to take a legitimate service animal. If you admit that in court, you are toast.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Clearly you've never heard oral arguments being given in a Supreme Court case.
> 
> I'll just leave this right here again.
> 
> ...


Again, you don't quite understand how the court system works, please educate yourself before just throwing up some YouTube link about a case that is about as far unrelated to the discussion as you possibly can. It would be like me posting a picture of a motorcycle and saying "I told you so!". It just amplifies your ignorance on the subject. I would suggest getting yourself a legal education before trying to have a debate with someone who has one.

A Supreme Court case is, by definition, an appeal, it's not the same as a primary hearing. I don't just take you to the Supreme Court. Lower courts rule on it, it gets appealed to a higher court (usually called an appeals court) who either rejects it (agreeing with the original findings, or at least, agreeing there was nothing done wrong in the original case), agrees that something was done wrong (and usually states what, in general terms, like "this evidence wasn't considered properly", or "this rule or law wasn't followed correctly", they don't say "Soandso is right!"), and at that point they usually return it to the court that considered it originally. If something was done that was way out of order (like blatantly wrong), they can admonish the judge, and/or send it to a different (but equal level) judge and/or court (but this is really only done if it's felt there is a real bias, and is very rare, as a Judge would have to have a pretty obvious bias for this to happen).

IF the appellate court does find that there was nothing wrong, it can be appealed again to the next higher court (in Federal cases, this is usually the Supreme Court). That court can then look at it and decide if they even want to bother with it (the grand majority get rejected without even being heard. There are some cases they pretty much HAVE to hear (by law), such as the case you linked, (cases involving the President and cases between the states, and this one involved both, they pretty much HAVE to take, as they basically ARE the appellate court for those, in rare cases, cases between the states can actually go straight to them, but that's a lesson for another time).

Your fictional case wouldn't even make it to the supreme court, in fact very, very few ADA cases do. Here is one of the very few that did (I'd show you more but there really are that few, involving service dogs, that make it that far). You'll notice that they focus (much like your example one, which, even though it has nothing to do with the ADA) on the rule of law, (which is what judges have to go by, they can personally think you are right and still find against you, if the law is written that way). For some back ground, the long and the short of this case is that there were competing laws. IDEA, ADA and Section 504 (of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973). The school tried to ignore ADA and 504, focusing just on IDEA. The parents claimed both IDEA and ADA (along with 504), which did create some confusion (as is shown in the arguments). Bottom line, there is no reason you can't claim both routes though, and even if only one goes through, it's still the law (IE, I claim you have to take my service dog because of ADA and let's say I claim some taxi code that Uber/Lyft has already been found that it's not required to follow, while you can disprove that, you still have to because of ADA).

Enjoy (Spoiler alert, the service dog wins).

https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts7/oral_argument_audio/24224


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Again, you don't quite understand how the court system works, please educate yourself before just throwing up some YouTube link about a case that is about as far unrelated to the discussion as you possibly can. It would be like me posting a picture of a motorcycle and saying "I told you so!". It just amplifies your ignorance on the subject. I would suggest getting yourself a legal education before trying to have a debate with someone who has one.
> 
> A Supreme Court case is, by definition, an appeal, it's not the same as a primary hearing. I don't just take you to the Supreme Court. Lower courts rule on it, it gets appealed to a higher court (usually called an appeals court) who either rejects it (agreeing with the original findings, or at least, agreeing there was nothing done wrong in the original case), agrees that something was done wrong (and usually states what, in general terms, like "this evidence wasn't considered properly", or "this rule or law wasn't followed correctly", they don't say "Soandso is right!"), and at that point they usually return it to the court that considered it originally. If something was done that was way out of order (like blatantly wrong), they can admonish the judge, and/or send it to a different (but equal level) judge and/or court (but this is really only done if it's felt there is a real bias, and is very rare, as a Judge would have to have a pretty obvious bias for this to happen).
> 
> ...


I love that this is a case about bringing a S.A. to school! Why? Because it becomes almost certain that there will be, in a class of about 30 kids, a teacher and an aide, not to mention others the S.A. would be near at lunchtime, in the halls, etc., SOMEONE is going to have allergies and/or asthma that will be aggravated by hair, dander, and saliva enzymes that become airborne.

Take a pill and get on with your life.

I love when drivers in this forum claim their allergy to animals is life-threatening. They have absolutely NO CLUE what someone in the situation they claim to be in actually has to do to survive public spaces...

As much skin as possible has to be covered. Long sleeves and gloves no matter how hot it is outside. Face masks with bio filters covering mouth and nose. Protective eyewear. It's hell. Every step outside their specially adapted home environment is weighed necessity vs. risk of death.

Is this how any of you drive every day, just in case one of your riders has a pet? If not, your allergies are manageable.

Do the job, or don't. SMDH


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> I love that this is a case about bringing a S.A. to school! Why? Because it becomes almost certain that there will be, in a class of about 30 kids, a teacher and an aide, not to mention others the S.A. would be near at lunchtime, in the halls, etc., SOMEONE is going to have allergies and/or asthma that will be aggravated by hair, dander, and saliva enzymes that become airborne.
> 
> Take a pill and get on with your life.
> 
> ...



















Maybe they can make a sequel.

"The Boy In the Plastic does Uber"


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> they don't say "Soandso is right!"


Well, usually they don't.

My Significant Other did have an appeal a few years ago, the result of which was "reversed and rendered." Doesn't happen very often, though.

It happened at a state appeals court here in Texas.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers should be asked if they want to be involved in transporting Service Animals. Their accounts should be flagged that they do.
> 
> Passengers should be asked if they have a service dog by Uber at time of booking. If they do the App should match them with one of the many thousands of drivers that will happily take them without issue.
> 
> ...


The intellectual and moral bankruptcy on this forum is truly shocking at times...


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Christinebitg said:


> Well, usually they don't.
> 
> My Significant Other did have an appeal a few years ago, the result of which was "reversed and rendered." Doesn't happen very often, though.
> 
> It happened at a state appeals court here in Texas.


True enough, there are some rare exceptions. I suppose the argument can be made that the Supreme Court often kind of does this too (as it's the final say and there can be no appeal higher). 

Actually the case I posted would be an example of that. They may not have said "Wonder can stay!", but they (effectively) said that because the IDEA process and the ADA are separate, you're still covered by the ADA (separately of the IDEA process, and you can pursue your rights under just the ADA separately as well). Which translates into "Wonder can stay!".


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Again, you don't quite understand how the court system works, please educate yourself before just throwing up some YouTube link about a case that is about as far unrelated to the discussion as you possibly can. It would be like me posting a picture of a motorcycle and saying "I told you so!". It just amplifies your ignorance on the subject. I would suggest getting yourself a legal education before trying to have a debate with someone who has one.
> 
> A Supreme Court case is, by definition, an appeal, it's not the same as a primary hearing. I don't just take you to the Supreme Court. Lower courts rule on it, it gets appealed to a higher court (usually called an appeals court) who either rejects it (agreeing with the original findings, or at least, agreeing there was nothing done wrong in the original case), agrees that something was done wrong (and usually states what, in general terms, like "this evidence wasn't considered properly", or "this rule or law wasn't followed correctly", they don't say "Soandso is right!"), and at that point they usually return it to the court that considered it originally. If something was done that was way out of order (like blatantly wrong), they can admonish the judge, and/or send it to a different (but equal level) judge and/or court (but this is really only done if it's felt there is a real bias, and is very rare, as a Judge would have to have a pretty obvious bias for this to happen).
> 
> ...


Again, they didn't win because they didn't know how to argue the case as I already showed.

People that need dogs to get around are not more valuable than those that are actually allergic to dogs. Period. End of story.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Again, they didn't win because they didn't know how to argue the case as I already showed.
> 
> People that need dogs to get around are not more valuable than those that are actually allergic to dogs. Period. End of story.


Legally, they are. Again, is it right? There is a ton of room for debate there (I'll even go as far as to say that someone who can show a severe reaction should have some form of protection, ability to opt out, etc). However, the fact remains that the law currently doesn't support that. There are several other protections they could probably work with (I was just replying to Suze, and going to tell a story about one, see it below). The way the case was argued was not the problem. The problem is the ADA specifically spells out that allergies are not an affirmative defense. Could have, would have, should have doesn't matter. Until or unless the law is changed, the net result is that anyone who so affected by allergies that they can't take a service dog, is unable to perform the job requirements and thus disabled (and not able to work as an uber driver). Right, wrong, those are debatable.

The law is what the law is currently though, if you don't like it, run for office and see if you can change it. I'd love to be a cop and could do 90% of it, but there is no way I'm going to be able to pass the physical part of the test. It's simply not going to happen. While I might be able to get a reasonable accommodation to bring my service dog with me (although it would be difficult given the heavy police use of K9s, etc), I could probably get exemptions for needing to be absent more often and having to take many more breaks. There is no way in hell, and no reasonable accommodation available, that is going to make it so I can go running after a suspect, let alone jump a wall trying to go after them. Until or unless they publicly market those bionic suits with the robo legs or something, it's just not in the cards for me. Right, wrong? Again, debatable, but as it is now, that's how it is.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Legally, they are. Again, is it right? There is a ton of room for debate there (I'll even go as far as to say that someone who can show a severe reaction should have some form of protection, ability to opt out, etc). However, the fact remains that the law currently doesn't support that. There are several other protections they could probably work with (I was just replying to Suze, and going to tell a story about one, see it below). The way the case was argued was not the problem. The problem is the ADA specifically spells out that allergies are not an affirmative defense. Could have, would have, should have doesn't matter. Until or unless the law is changed, the net result is that anyone who so affected by allergies that they can't take a service dog, is unable to perform the job requirements and thus disabled (and not able to work as an uber driver). Right, wrong, those are debatable.
> 
> The law is what the law is currently though, if you don't like it, run for office and see if you can change it. I'd love to be a cop and could do 90% of it, but there is no way I'm going to be able to pass the physical part of the test. It's simply not going to happen. While I might be able to get a reasonable accommodation to bring my service dog with me (although it would be difficult given the heavy police use of K9s, etc), I could probably get exemptions for needing to be absent more often and having to take many more breaks. There is no way in hell, and no reasonable accommodation available, that is going to make it so I can go running after a suspect, let alone jump a wall trying to go after them. Until or unless they publicly market those bionic suits with the robo legs or something, it's just not in the cards for me. Right, wrong? Again, debatable, but as it is now, that's how it is.


If a driver isn't allergic to dogs, I get it, they should not be able to legally say no, but for those who are harmed by being in a car with a dog, they should be forced to be harmed.

But common sense is way too overrated.

You can feel the opposite all you want, but I can assure you that most people feel the way I do.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> If a driver isn't allergic to dogs, I get it, they should not be able to legally say no, but for those who are harmed by being in a car with a dog, they should be forced to be harmed.
> 
> But common sense is way too overrated.
> 
> You can feel the opposite all you want, but I can assure you that most people feel the way I do.


That may be true. All I can tell you is what the law says, currently. It's changed before, it will likely change again in the future (in what way, is anyone's guess). Until just about 10 years ago, Service Cats were a thing (and a ton more people are much more allergic to them). So imagine what that would have been like. As for people feeling the way you do, clearly not "most" people do. To say many people do, I believe would be fair. But if "most" did, the law would be different. The allergies not being an excuse thing, is one of the few things that has been very consistent about service dog law (along with religious objections and fear of dogs). The people who actually object to that part of it, are in a relatively small minority (and ironically aren't even often the people with allergies themselves, strangely enough).



SuzeCB said:


> I love that this is a case about bringing a S.A. to school! Why? Because it becomes almost certain that there will be, in a class of about 30 kids, a teacher and an aide, not to mention others the S.A. would be near at lunchtime, in the halls, etc., SOMEONE is going to have allergies and/or asthma that will be aggravated by hair, dander, and saliva enzymes that become airborne.
> 
> Take a pill and get on with your life.
> 
> ...


*This isn't directed at Suze, it's just in general, since she mentioned schools... I happen to agree with her post.*

As most of you know I've done work with a firm that is an advocacy group for the disabled. We had one situation where there was both an employee with a service animal AND an employee with a pretty intense (but not "technically severe", as in anaphylaxis wasn't a threat) allergy. Thankfully, both of these people were reasonable and for the most part tried to avoid each other. However we were consulted for a policy that would be compliant, and fair to both of them. They were both vetted (doing reasonable accommodations for employment allows a bit more documentation than public access does, Title I vs Title III), and were both legit. This was at a facility where most people worked in the open cubicles, where managers, execs, etc had actual offices. We came up with using one of the vacant offices as a designated allergy office (in the policy, everyone knew who was getting it for now), they actually put in a positive airflow system (like you'd find in a lab), and made sure it was strategically placed to allow access to the bathroom, etc, without having to go past where the dog was assigned.

90% of these kind of accommodations are more situational than anything. If there was someone who was like me with the service dog and couldn't be near too bright of lights, they would have had to first figure out where best to put me, then figure out where to put the allergic girl. However, that wasn't the case here, so it was a bit easier. It's a bit of a shuffle the HR and Legal departments have to do, but it has to be done. While they can't 100% prevent any chance of the service dog and allergic person coming together they can do their best to prevent it as much as possible, and if it does happen and the allergic person needs some time to epi-pen, or take the rest of the day off or whatever, they can accommodate that too.

In the end though, they can't say they won't take the service dog, because there is an allergic who works there (no more than a driver can say they won't take the dog because they are allergic). Schools have been hiding behind the same kind of idea, and the Fry case (the one I posted the oral arguments for) gave them a good swift kick in the rear that it isn't going to fly. They will of course make sure that the two students are never in the same class room together. They may even setup an accommodation where the room the dog was in has to be attended to by the janitors before the class with the allergy person goes in. They will, of course, be expected to do all that is possible, but they can't refuse the service dog.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> That may be true. All I can tell you is what the law says, currently. It's changed before, it will likely change again in the future (in what way, is anyone's guess).


I was wondering where you got to given your discussion of last year May time frame over this issue.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> I was wondering where you got to given your discussion of last year May time frame over this issue.


My health took a rather sudden and dramatic downturn. I'm starting to do a lot better now, and am working on catching up.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> If a driver isn't allergic to dogs, I get it, they should not be able to legally say no, but for those who are harmed by being in a car with a dog, they should be forced to be harmed.
> 
> But common sense is way too overrated.
> 
> You can feel the opposite all you want, but I can assure you that most people feel the way I do.


Ok, Pawtism has been too nice to you. They gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed, with admirable charity, that you "may be correct" but you're not and I'm going to tell you why this has never been an excuse, isn't currently an excuse, and will never be an excuse.

Legal precedent, generally, requires consistency and a lack of legal contradictions. Overturning law has always been the result when it has been found that statutes fail to be written in such a way that they can effectively be enforced or reasonably adhered to without violating other rights or law in the process. This situation, of exempting allergy sufferers from adhering to disability compliance laws (I won't cite the ADA because I live in Australia and we have the same laws here, under a different framework), is such an example.

Since you brought up common sense, I'll use that standard to show you several really obvious contradictions, by analogy, that exist with your argument:

A person with celiac disease cannot refuse to sell bread at a bakery. They may be deathly ill by even breathing trace amounts of gluten but that just means they are unable (read have a disability) that prevents them from doing this job.

Epileptics cannot be Uber drivers. Sure, 90% of the time, an epileptic can drive you too and from a destination just fine. But 10% of the time they kill someone. That's why they are disabled from driving and thus, disqualified from driving for Uber. Shocking, I know.

A blind person cannot be a navy fighter pilot. The requirements for flight officer are physically rigorous because the already expensive technology requires sharp situational awareness, complete with better than average visual acuity. Technoligy can enhance the lives of blind people quite a bit and there might be one or two things a blind person could do to click on the autopilot but there's no way they would outperform even the worst rookie on a mission. They'd most likely die and lose a 100 million dollar aircraft.

I hope you see the point. There are clearly people who are incapable of doing jobs. They are called "disabled". If you suffer allergies to the point where you can't drive anymore, you are disabled. If you are disabled from driving a car, you cannot pass the physical that you took as part of the sign up process and are thus disqualified from being an Uber driver.

You are required, as part of being in a country with a viable legal system, to be a reasonable public steward towards those with disabilities. Why? Because we want to live in a world with nice, caring people, who help those that cannot physically fend for themselves. One way we do this is by training and granting assistance animals to the disabled. Service animals are cleaner, smarter, behaviorally trained, compliant, and genetically superior because they were selected that way before training. This assures as much due diligence on the part of society to protect itself from the possible problems associated with implementing a law that provides assistance animals to disabled people. This is primarily because reducing prejudice is impossible within an acceptable time frame, so compliance with the law is made mandatory.

Now, you cannot force one disabled person to usurp the rights of another person. In this way, you cannot force a disabled person to stand next to a service animal that would make them ill. Under normal providence, this would just be a situation where the allergy sufferer could just extracate themselves you couldn't be detained there by a public official without putting you in an unacceptable amount of danger.

Just the same, the law mandates that commercial passenger vehicles not discriminate against assistance animals. When you signed up with Uber, you signed legal documents that stated, very clearly, that you would (and could) comply legally with all laws. If you have such severe allergies, you are completely unable to drive a vehicle under all conditions to which the law is applied to you. This means that you were either lying when you signed up or your were ignorant or the terms of your employment are in need of a review due to a change of circumstances.

There. This should now be dead. Please don't argue it any more. You're wrong. Everyone arguing that you shouldn't be mandated to allow service animals in your car is wrong. You are immoral if you want to change that law and that law is there to protect disabled people from prejudiced behavior by service workers of all stripes.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Legally, they are. Again, is it right? There is a ton of room for debate there (I'll even go as far as to say that someone who can show a severe reaction should have some form of protection, ability to opt out, etc). However, the fact remains that the law currently doesn't support that. There are several other protections they could probably work with (I was just replying to Suze, and going to tell a story about one, see it below). The way the case was argued was not the problem. The problem is the ADA specifically spells out that allergies are not an affirmative defense. Could have, would have, should have doesn't matter. Until or unless the law is changed, the net result is that anyone who so affected by allergies that they can't take a service dog, is unable to perform the job requirements and thus disabled (and not able to work as an uber driver). Right, wrong, those are debatable.
> 
> The law is what the law is currently though, if you don't like it, run for office and see if you can change it. I'd love to be a cop and could do 90% of it, but there is no way I'm going to be able to pass the physical part of the test. It's simply not going to happen. While I might be able to get a reasonable accommodation to bring my service dog with me (although it would be difficult given the heavy police use of K9s, etc), I could probably get exemptions for needing to be absent more often and having to take many more breaks. There is no way in hell, and no reasonable accommodation available, that is going to make it so I can go running after a suspect, let alone jump a wall trying to go after them. Until or unless they publicly market those bionic suits with the robo legs or something, it's just not in the cards for me. Right, wrong? Again, debatable, but as it is now, that's how it is.


You could, however, get yourself a hat and pipe and rename your dog Watson and become Sherlock!


----------



## vtcomics (Oct 9, 2018)

I am fine with dogs, but I am betting this issue will eventually end up with a big time lawsuit by a driver/drivers family who was "forced" by law to accept transport and ends up with life threatening or loss of life allergic reaction. The law as is basically makes anyone with animal allergies "unfit for duty" and forces them to choose between seriously risking their health or of losing their chosen job, and that is just as wrong as denying folks their service animal. When I worked for the TSA, if an officer with animal allergies was presented with having to screen a service animal they were allowed to call in another officer instead. Shouldn't the same be allowed for Uber/Lyft drivers? Simply have the drivers Uber/Lyft internal profile flagged for animal allergies, with drivers required to submit full notarized medical documentation to prove such. Match up riders, who also must declare they have a service animal, only with drivers who don't have documented animal allergies. All fully documented. Animal allergic drivers keep on driving. Service animal pax get their rides. All good.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

vtcomics said:


> I am fine with dogs, but I am betting this issue will eventually end up with a big time lawsuit by a driver/drivers family who was "forced" by law to accept transport and ends up with life threatening or loss of life allergic reaction. The law as is basically makes anyone with animal allergies "unfit for duty" and forces them to choose between seriously risking their health or of losing their chosen job, and that is just as wrong as denying folks their service animal. When I worked for the TSA, if an officer with animal allergies was presented with having to screen a service animal they were allowed to call in another officer instead. Shouldn't the same be allowed for Uber/Lyft drivers? Simply have the drivers Uber/Lyft internal profile flagged for animal allergies, with drivers required to submit full notarized medical documentation to prove such. Match up riders, who also must declare they have a service animal, only with drivers who don't have documented animal allergies. All fully documented. Animal allergic drivers keep on driving. Service animal pax get their rides. All good.


No. It'll just end for drivers who violate the law. Uber will deactivate them and sanity will prevail.


----------



## vtcomics (Oct 9, 2018)

Rushmanyyz said:


> No. It'll just end for drivers who violate the law. Uber will deactivate them and sanity will prevail.


For the time being. But the almighty LAW didn't take into account many issues such as this. Airline passengers eventually were bringing on service miniature horses and peacocks...until the airlines pushed back. Hardly what I'd call sanity. The LAW will most likely end up getting tweaked to make it FAIR for all. That's sanity.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

Yet another "Service Animal Solution" thread.

You cannot opt in or out of taking service animals. Refusing violates ADA and gets you banned. End of discussion. Uber, Lyft, nor any other business entity for that matter can do anything like what the OP suggests under the law as it's currently written. It is not up to them.


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> People that need dogs to get around are not more valuable than those that are actually allergic to dogs.


They are not more valuable.

But they do have more legal protections.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

vtcomics said:


> I am fine with dogs, but I am betting this issue will eventually end up with a big time lawsuit by a driver/drivers family who was "forced" by law to accept transport and ends up with life threatening or loss of life allergic reaction. The law as is basically makes anyone with animal allergies "unfit for duty" and forces them to choose between seriously risking their health or of losing their chosen job, and that is just as wrong as denying folks their service animal. When I worked for the TSA, if an officer with animal allergies was presented with having to screen a service animal they were allowed to call in another officer instead. Shouldn't the same be allowed for Uber/Lyft drivers? Simply have the drivers Uber/Lyft internal profile flagged for animal allergies, with drivers required to submit full notarized medical documentation to prove such. Match up riders, who also must declare they have a service animal, only with drivers who don't have documented animal allergies. All fully documented. Animal allergic drivers keep on driving. Service animal pax get their rides. All good.


Independent contractors, remember? If your company HAD another driver, and you could swap out without an unreasonable delay, you absolutely could do that. I don't know about you, but when I was driving, I didn't have another driver just following me around just in case I wanted to swap out. Uber isn't responsible for that (and has no motivation to make themselves responsible for it, in fact, it's contrary to their interests), your company would be. That would work for the TSA (as they can swap employees with no unreasonable delay), it wouldn't work for a 1 person business (not just drivers, let's say you owned a shop selling... whatever, and you're the only person working there, if I come in, guess who gets to deal with me?). As for the lawsuit thing, Uber/Lyft may not have been around for very long, but cabs have been. Drivers have tried the allergies thing, and it's failed (Minneapolis has more cases of this, and religion and fear claims that have failed than just about anywhere else, some very discriminatory cabbies up there).

Sometimes they manage to get away with it (Another Uber Driver has several tales of this), but they also work for the same company, and if they can swap a driver without an unreasonable delay, who's going to complain? However, take a look at the stats on people with dog allergies that are at a dangerous level. It's actually lower than the number of people who use service dogs, which is already pretty darn low. Most the people claiming they have allergies, get the sniffles, and try to make it a much bigger deal than it is because they are self centered and don't have any idea what it's like to have an actual disability. Even mine is pretty tame compared to what some people have to go through. As for the law taking it into account, they actually did. In fact, they intentionally spelled out that allergies (and later had to add fear of dogs and religious objections to the list) were not a valid excuse. They took it into account, considered it carefully, and came to the logical conclusion that just about everyone should come to. Anyone with a life threatening allergy is going to be allergic to the stuff coming off Mr. and Mrs. Pet Owners sweater anyway, and will thus be disabled. The rest can take a Claritin (as it's not like the blind guy or epileptic girl can just take a pill and rid themselves of being blind or epileptic for a few hours).


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Rushmanyyz said:


> Ok, Pawtism has been too nice to you. They gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed, with admirable charity, that you "may be correct" but you're not and I'm going to tell you why this has never been an excuse, isn't currently an excuse, and will never be an excuse.
> 
> Legal precedent, generally, requires consistency and a lack of legal contradictions. Overturning law has always been the result when it has been found that statutes fail to be written in such a way that they can effectively be enforced or reasonably adhered to without violating other rights or law in the process. This situation, of exempting allergy sufferers from adhering to disability compliance laws (I won't cite the ADA because I live in Australia and we have the same laws here, under a different framework), is such an example.
> 
> ...


Nothing about my posts are wrong. I stated my opinion about what should happen to the law. I never stated anything that could be construed as being wrong. I stated an opinion based on what the law currently is.

The sooner you wrap your head around that the better off you'll be.

Most people at this board have known for a while how the law works. It sounds like you just figured it out and are trying to act smart about it.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Nothing about my posts are wrong. I stated my opinion about what should happen to the law. I never stated anything that could be construed as being wrong. I stated an opinion based on what the law currently is.
> 
> The sooner you wrap your head around that the better off you'll be.
> 
> Most people at this board have known for a while how the law works. It sounds like you just figured it out and are trying to act smart about it.


Lmao. You know there is a legal article out there that cites this forum and in it, it speaks at some length at the degree of error among the legal opinions offered here?

You're a freaking Uber driver man...


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Christinebitg said:


> They are not more valuable.
> 
> But they do have more legal protections.


The point of the law was to take a group that were less valuable and make them equal.

But this will fly right over these posters heads.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Rushmanyyz said:


> Lmao. You know there is a legal article out there that cites this forum and in it, it speaks at some length at the degree of error among the legal opinions offered here?
> 
> You're a freaking Uber driver man...


ummm...this is a messageboard where people post their opinions.

If you don't like seeing other peoples opinions you're in the wrong place.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> The point of the law was to take a group that were less valuable and make them equal.
> 
> But this will fly right over these posters heads.


Handicapped people are "less valuable"? Please do elaborate.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Rushmanyyz said:


> Lmao. You know there is a legal article out there that cites this forum and in it, it speaks at some length at the degree of error among the legal opinions offered here?
> 
> You're a freaking Uber driver man...


Do you have a link? I'd like to read it.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Handicapped people are "less valuable"? Please do elaborate.


I believe he meant more like... "less valued" (perhaps "undervalued" would have been a better choice of words). I think he was saying that the ADA puts people with disabilities on a more level playing field (or at least that's how I read it, I'm Autistic, who knows, I might have gotten it wrong haha).


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Do you have a link? I'd like to read it.


I know about this one, but it's not involving service animals or ADA (tax law mostly, which is fitting because it's from a law school journal oriented around tax laws hehe). It wasn't so much about inaccuracies (although that seems to get mentioned) as it was about a place to find issues. They did say, "One news article accurately described Uberpeople.net, one of the forums we studied, as a "public water cooler" for atomized Uber drivers" (which I'd aruge isn't inaccurate really, I used a double negative, oh no!). https://taxlawjournal.columbia.edu/...ers-evidence-from-internet-discussion-forums/

I haven't come across any others, but would be interested in reading it also.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Handicapped people are "less valuable"? Please do elaborate.


No, never, but some considered them so. It is in those situations that the Congress and the Courts must act.

It is a shame when it comes to that, but it did.

I never intended the post as you took it, but after reading it again, I understand how you did.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Do you have a link? I'd like to read it.


Nah, I came across it trying to research some things said on Uberpeople. I'll do another similar search and see if I can locate it. I don't even remember which University it was.

It just came back to me in context. I'll try to link it later.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> I know about this one, but it's not involving service animals or ADA (tax law mostly, which is fitting because it's from a law school journal oriented around tax laws hehe). It wasn't so much about inaccuracies (although that seems to get mentioned) as it was about a place to find issues. They did say, "One news article accurately described Uberpeople.net, one of the forums we studied, as a "public water cooler" for atomized Uber drivers" (which I'd aruge isn't inaccurate really, I used a double negative, oh no!). https://taxlawjournal.columbia.edu/...ers-evidence-from-internet-discussion-forums/
> 
> I haven't come across any others, but would be interested in reading it also.


Doh! Paws already found it. See, teach me not to read more deeply into the thread before posting. That's the article I was talking about. I didn't mean to inflate its importance, I just thought it was funny in the context of people giving legal advice on the forum.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

BigRedDriver said:


> The point of the law was to take a group that were less valuable and make them equal.
> 
> But this will fly right over these posters heads.


this post flies over my head. going by your posts on this thread, I'm pretty sure you don't mean it to be insulting.


Pawtism said:


> My health took a rather sudden and dramatic downturn. I'm starting to do a lot better now, and am working on catching up.


glad you're not dead!


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Some people get so passionate over a cause they fail to read for context and only see what fuels their need to argue.
> 
> I have a dog. Recently I have acquired a service animal. Personally I have zero issue driving people with dogs providing they behave and/or the passenger cleans up after them. I have never told anyone needing a ride with a dog No.
> 
> ...


Quite the contrary.

While I do admit that I like to argue, especially with the slew of moral reprobates that give "their opinions", a lot of work has gone into the ADA and it is still quite necessary. People still find disabled people, lesser, inconvenient, annoying, and act in all numbers of ways extracate themselves from having to interact with them. It is this reason that I get my hackles up about the issue at all.

Allergies suck. I had a minor cat and dog allergy myself. It was very minor and I love animals. I play with them all the time. Over time, the allergy has gone away. In fact, even severe allergies can be passified with enough resources to go to an immunologist. It's no silver bullet, but studies do show that managed exposure and mitigating medications can arrest many allergic reactions.

That said, I don't expect or desire everyone to do this. Not everyone loves animals like I do, having a Zoology degree. But this isn't really about allergies. This is about disability, so lets return there.

If you have a disability, the standard medical stance is to help disabled people mitigate whatever disability they have. We do this in a number of ways.

For mobile folks who have difficulty walking, we give placards that allow the use of Handicap spaces that, generally, are nearer to the entrance of venues. We also trained up service animals to assist various people with disabilities, the blind are the obvious example here, but there are others.

Assistance animals are intrinsic to the lives of their disabled partners. They are more than mere help. They are best friends and close confidants. They are as emotionally imperative as they are physically and, as a result, inextricably important to the disabled human's wellbeing. Because of these factors, the ADA mandates that all venues and business services to do everything reasonable to accommodate service animals.

Enter Uber. Roughly 7-15% (accurate statistics on this are hard to locate quickly) of people have some form of Dog allergy. Of those, "most" get exuma. Those that get rhinitis can get it more severely than severe cat sufferers do and can, rarely, have an anaphylactic reaction.

These reactions are caused by proteins present in the dog's body fluids as well as the skin (primarily through skin oils and exfoliation of dander). Because of this, there is some risk of coming in contact with these if there is a dog in your car. Now, it is similarly likely that people who suffer this bad, also can get it by dander present on a per owners clothes.

If you take into consideration the low percentage chance, the increased exposure risk of the 30-40 % of the population of people who have dogs/cats, and the likelihood of a well-kept service animal giving you a serious reaction, you'll quickly see how Uber is more inconvenienced by a whinging driver than the disabled rider, who has a legal standing to have that animal.

It's your fault, as a public allergy sufferer, to get medication and/or undergo immune therapy. If those do not help, you are unable to legally fulfill the duties and responsibilities of being a public service provider and, sadly, must find other work. There is no reasonable accommodation that can be made for you. If avoiding a section of the public is the only way to mitigate your suffering, we, as a people, are going to remove you, not the entity that you are allergic to, from the public space. This is for your own good.

It's unfortunate that you, therefore miss out on being an Uber driver. It's fair though. If it were so important, you'd get your immune therapy and find a way to deal with the one dog you're going to drive every year.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Boca Ratman said:


> this post flies over my head. going by your posts on this thread, I'm pretty sure you don't mean it to be insulting.
> 
> glad you're not dead!


I explained it above.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> No, never, but some considered them so. It is in those situations that the Congress and the Courts must act.
> 
> It is a shame when it comes to that, but it did.
> 
> I never intended the post as you took it, but after reading it again, I understand how you did.


That's why I asked instead of ripping into you.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> That's why I asked instead of ripping into you.


You are obviously one of the good guys!


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Rushmanyyz said:


> We also trained up service animals to assist various people with disabilities, the blind are the obvious example here, but there are others.


 I was reading yet another thread dealing with service animals. I believe it was actually in regards to people claiming their dog was a service animal when it was not. A guy, a cab driver, told a story of a regular who always brought his "service dog" a doberman or other large breed, with him. The guy had no noticable handicap. 
The cab driver never really believed him but never questioned him and just took him and the dog as it was a good regular fare One day the cab driver is driving this guy and his dog, mid trip the guy asked the driver to pull over threw some money at him and asked him to call 911. the guy got out and lied (laid?) down on the ground. the dog followed him, dragged away from the road and the positioned itself under the guys head. The guy began to have a seizure. When he stopped seizing the dog woke up the man and then retrieved the guys cell phone out of a bag and brought it to him.

The cab driver never questioned a service dog again.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Nothing about my posts are wrong.


Sorry, but everything about your posts is wrong.



uberdriverfornow said:


> I stated my opinion about what should happen to the law.


No, what you stated was a _proposed policy_ for Uber that would, in fact, _be in violation of current Federal law_. This is what you're not getting, or are unwilling to get.



uberdriverfornow said:


> I never stated anything that could be construed as being wrong.


Yes, you did, because you proposed that Uber adopt a policy that would clearly be in violation of Federal law, and it would be impossible for Uber to adopt it without being immediately subject to a class action suit. I don't think they are up for that fight at the moment . . .


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> I was reading yet another thread dealing with service animals. I believe it was actually in regards to people claiming their dog was a service animal when it was not. A guy, a cab driver, told a story of a regular who always brought his "service dog" a doberman or other large breed, with him. The guy had no noticable handicap.
> The cab driver never really believed him but never questioned him and just took him and the dog as it was a good regular fare One day the cab driver is driving this guy and his dog, mid trip the guy asked the driver to pull over threw some money at him and asked him to call 911. the guy got out and lied (laid?) down on the ground. the dog followed him, dragged away from the road and the positioned itself under the guys head. The guy began to have a seizure. When he stopped seizing the dog woke up the man and then retrieved the guys cell phone out of a bag and brought it to him.
> 
> The cab driver never questioned a service dog again.


That's kind of the point of invisible disabilities. Disabilities are a bit of a spectrum within themselves. Diabetics, for example, as long as they do properly manage it, can be the most normal of people. Epileptics can seem normal to most, but are medically disqualified from driving. Autism can range from super obviously different to relatively normal (I'm pretty high functioning, as an example; Sheldon Cooper, while fictional, to most people wouldn't seem "disabled", but clearly has Asperger's). On the flip side, someone with no legs, everyone would realize is disabled, but with adaptive tech, a good attitude and some hard work, could outrun most of us. You just never know. Which is why you can't ever be sure. Service dog, handicap parking, wheelchairs, you just can't be sure.

It's best to assume that whoever is using whatever adaptive tech needs it to start. THEN if they give you evidence to the contrary, you can start to consider it. Too many people's baseline is to assume that the person is a faker, then look for evidence that they are not. Then they complain about the way the law is written. However, they fail to understand that the idea of innocent until proven guilty is for more than just the criminal code. Yes, for some things we do have to give some kind of proof (reasonable accommodations, handicap placards, etc), and yes, sadly some people of very low moral character do abuse those systems. But what does it say about our character if we assume off the bat that everyone is faking (be it service dogs, wheelchairs, crutches, or whatever)?

In the end, it's best to accept what is presented to you, until you have reason to believe otherwise (the dog starts misbehaving, you ask a standard question and get "emotional support" for the answer, etc).


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> That's kind of the point of invisible disabilities. Disabilities are a bit of a spectrum within themselves. Diabetics, for example, as long as they do properly manage it, can be the most normal of people. Epileptics can seem normal to most, but are medically disqualified from driving. Autism can range from super obviously different to relatively normal (I'm pretty high functioning, as an example; Sheldon Cooper, while fictional, to most people wouldn't seem "disabled", but clearly has Asperger's). On the flip side, someone with no legs, everyone would realize is disabled, but with adaptive tech, a good attitude and some hard work, could outrun most of us. You just never know. Which is why you can't ever be sure. Service dog, handicap parking, wheelchairs, you just can't be sure.
> 
> It's best to assume that whoever is using whatever adaptive tech needs it to start. THEN if they give you evidence to the contrary, you can start to consider it. Too many people's baseline is to assume that the person is a faker, then look for evidence that they are not. Then they complain about the way the law is written. However, they fail to understand that the idea of innocent until proven guilty is for more than just the criminal code. Yes, for some things we do have to give some kind of proof (reasonable accommodations, handicap placards, etc), and yes, sadly some people of very low moral character do abuse those systems. But what does it say about our character if we assume off the bat that everyone is faking (be it service dogs, wheelchairs, crutches, or whatever)?
> 
> In the end, it's best to accept what is presented to you, until you have reason to believe otherwise (the dog starts misbehaving, you ask a standard question and get "emotional support" for the answer, etc).


These are the best trained animals in the world. It's almost more of an honor for me to meet them than it is to have the opportunity to help a disabled rider.

How people can hate on Service animals is baffling to me.

As for allergy sufferers, get an immunologist.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Rushmanyyz said:


> These are the best trained animals in the world. It's almost more of an honor for me to meet them than it is to have the opportunity to help a disabled rider.
> 
> How people can hate on Service animals is baffling to me.
> 
> As for allergy sufferers, get an immunologist.


It's always funny to me when people try to go the allergy route, as I am allergic to dogs. Yet, I have to have one with me 24/7/365. I have to take Claritin daily, and get allergy shots every 2 weeks. If I can live with it 24/7/365, they're going to be fine dealing with me for the 10 mins or so it takes to drop me off, you know?


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> It's always funny to me when people try to go the allergy route, as I am allergic to dogs. Yet, I have to have one with me 24/7/365. I have to take Claritin daily, and get allergy shots every 2 weeks. If I can live with it 24/7/365, they're going to be fine dealing with me for the 10 mins or so it takes to drop me off, you know?


Yep, I totally do.

Let's be real though, they aren't allergic anyway. They just don't like dogs. It's the same fake outrage as anything on this forum. A lot of these drivers drive around with a huge chip on their shoulder, *****ing incessantly about how their Rideshare company rips them off. Then they get all giddy when they rip riders off or dishonestly bilk money from... whoever.

I for one, don't have an ounce of sympathy for drivers who complain about many issues here. They have proven, almost always, to have no credibility. They fail at the most basic levels of nuance and I'll be dammed if I let it go. This is just one of those issues.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Sorry, but everything about your posts is wrong.
> 
> No, what you stated was a _proposed policy_ for Uber that would, in fact, _be in violation of current Federal law_. This is what you're not getting, or are unwilling to get.
> 
> Yes, you did, because you proposed that Uber adopt a policy that would clearly be in violation of Federal law, and it would be impossible for Uber to adopt it without being immediately subject to a class action suit. I don't think they are up for that fight at the moment . . .


I never proposed an Uber policy. Period.
Furthermore, I can propose whatever I want and that would be an opinion not a fact. You can't prove an opinion wrong.

Welcome to a messageboard where people share opinions.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Furthermore, I can propose whatever I want and that would be an opinion not a fact. You can't prove an opinion wrong.


So if someone is of the opinion that the earth is flat, that cannot be proven wrong? Where do people get garbage ideas like "you can't prove an opinion wrong", anyway? Is this some bumper-sticker slogan people just reflexively regurgitate without thinking, or do they actually believe things like this?

This is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in the last couple of years, and I've heard a _lot_ of stupid things in the last couple of years, and not just emanating from the back seat out of the mouths of paxes.


----------



## cdm813 (Jan 9, 2017)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> It's a preemptive move to match special needs passengers with available drivers willing to accommodate their needs. There is no law broken when UBER matches a passenger with a driver that does not deny them.
> 
> Armchair Lawyers are no better than arm chair coaches.
> 
> ...


But you're giving someone with a service dog access to less drivers. By giving a person access to a smaller driver pool, increasing the wait time to match a driver and for that driver to arrive, that's textbook discrimination and is ILLEGAL.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> So if someone is of the opinion that the earth is flat, that cannot be proven wrong? Where do people get garbage ideas like "you can't prove an opinion wrong", anyway? Is this some bumper-sticker slogan people just reflexively regurgitate without thinking, or do they actually believe things like this?
> 
> This is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in the last couple of years, and I've heard a _lot_ of stupid things in the last couple of years, and not just emanating from the back seat out of the mouths of paxes.


Depends on the opinion. If I say, "I love lemons". I can't be wrong because that's my own opinion that's not based on fact.

However, if I say, "lemons are blue in color" then you're making an opinion based on facts that are wrong.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Depends on the opinion. If I say, "I love lemons". I can't be wrong because that's my own opinion that's not based on fact.
> 
> However, if I say, "lemons are blue in color" then you're making an opinion based on facts that are wrong.


I believe that when one avenue you pursue gets shut down by logic, you like to double talk to try to escape down a different avenue (which also gets shut down due to logic), and the cycle continues because you just can't accept that you're wrong.

Go ahead and prove that opinion wrong. 

Checkmate...

If you do prove it wrong, then your own logic kills your statements. If you don't, then my ("opinion's") logic kills your statements. Kindly tip over your King please...


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Depends on the opinion.


Oh, so when you said "[y]ou can't prove an opinion wrong", you realized that was empty blather. Got it.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> I believe that when one avenue you pursue gets shut down by logic, you like to double talk to try to escape down a different avenue (which also gets shut down due to logic), and the cycle continues because you just can't accept that you're wrong.
> 
> Go ahead and prove that opinion wrong.
> 
> ...


You're basically talking about what you did in this entire thread. You started out by saying I was wrong but you never proved it. Then you kept back tracking by saying "you may be right, but ...." all throughout this thread.


JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Oh, so when you said "[y]ou can't prove an opinion wrong", you realized that was empty blather. Got it.


I think most people realize the difference between "I love lemons" and "lemons are blue".

One is an opinion, the other is an opinion based on a fact that is wrong.

If I had ever stated something about the ADA that was factually wrong then I would be wrong. All I ever did was state why I thought it should be changed.

Big difference.

The funny part of this thread is the holier than thou attitude of those that love telling people what the current law is and how Uber and Lyft try to abide by it as if they are better than everyone else.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I think most people realize the difference between "I love lemons" and "lemons are blue".
> 
> One is an opinion, the other is an opinion based on a fact that is wrong.


So when you said "you can't prove an opinion wrong", what you actually meant was "you can't prove an opinion wrong, except for some of them". Got it.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> So when you said "you can't prove an opinion wrong", what you actually meant was "you can't prove an opinion wrong, except for some of them". Got it.


You're the kind of guy that loves telling people that love lemons that they are wrong. lol

"I love lemons". "No, you're wrong, man, you're so wrong."


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You're basically talking about what you did in this entire thread. You started out by saying I was wrong but you never proved it. Then you kept back tracking by saying "you may be right, but ...." all throughout this thread.
> 
> I think most people realize the difference between "I love lemons" and "lemons are yellow".
> 
> ...


Actually both are facts (unless you're lying about loving lemons). I love Barq's Diet Root Beer. It's a fact that I love Barq's Diet Root Beer (although a fact that would be hard for anyone else to prove or disprove). You're thinking of an "opinion" (evidently you aren't even sure what an opinion is). "Barq's Diet Root Beer is the best soda out there!", THAT is an opinion. "Lemons are awesome!", is an opinion. "Avenger's End Game is going to be awesome" is a fact.... err... I mean, an opinion. 

"Uber could just do this, that, or the other thing to discriminate against the disabled (but i'll call it something nicer so I don't sound like I'm being discriminatory)", is an idea. A bad one at that (THAT is an opinion, mine to be exact), and an illegal one at that (and that is a fact, see the differences here?). I've proven why it's illegal (factually), I've given reasons why it's a bad idea (opinionally, one that is shared by the majority though). You meant to say it was an idea, but got caught in this whole double talk loop that you don't even know what you're talking about anymore. _knocks over your King_ Do yourself a favor and give it up, lest I have to actually quote each of your posts and draw you a map of your double talk. It's unwise to debate law with someone in the field when you don't even have a legal education of your own.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> So when you said "you can't prove an opinion wrong", what you actually meant was "you can't prove an opinion wrong, except for some of them". Got it.


Me, "I think that the law should be changed to be fair to both parties". You, "no you're wrong, you're so wrong. You couldn't be any more wrong. I can't prove you're wrong but I'm going to say it anyhow".


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Me, "I think that the law should be changed to be fair to both parties". You, "no you're wrong, you're so wrong. You couldn't be any more wrong. I can't prove you're wrong but I'm going to say it anyhow".


If you had simply said, "the law should be changed", THAT would have been an opinion (and one others might share too). Go back and re-read your posts though, that's not what you said.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> If you had simply said, "the law should be changed", THAT would have been an opinion (and one others might share too). Go back and re-read your posts though, that's not what you said.


You stated "that's not how it works" after I stated they needed to argue it a different way.

I then posted an audio recording of an actual case being argued before the Supreme Court and you stated "I stand by my statement" after I had proved that you were wrong.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-service-dog-issue-is-so-easy-to-resolve.300845/post-4716815
This is you saying "that may be true" then trying to backpedal.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-service-dog-issue-is-so-easy-to-resolve.300845/post-4718814
When you got something of me actually being wrong I'd love to see it.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

You made the ridiculous claim that



uberdriverfornow said:


> All you really need is for one person to stand up and say this law is @@@@ed up and take the fine and then appeal it and force congress to change it to allow for an "I don't want to die because I'm forced to take a service dog that I'm allergic to" exemption.


I informed you that it's been tried (many, many times), and has always failed for the reasons I explain later (if you're even bothering to read the posts, it kind of seems like you're not).



Pawtism said:


> It's been tried, and has failed (multiple times actually, there is a reason the ADA now specifically states that allergies, religious objections, and fears are not valid reasons), please do your research first, thanks.


Then you made the even more ridiculous comment, to the effect that it's just that these 100s (if not 1000s) of attorneys that have argued it previously over the last 28 years just didn't make the right argument (trying to double talk your way out of your previous statement), instead of just saying, "oh, well the law should be changed then!" (which would have been an opinion btw).

Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole? I mean we can break down each and every post if you like, but I'd review them myself first if I were you, it's not going to wind up looking very good for you. I'd rather not publicly embarrass you. Why not just take the out and say "well ultimately what I'm saying is the law should be changed", as that's an "opinion" that some might agree with you on. Even I think some parts of it should be changed (although not the allergies part so much).


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> You made the ridiculous claim that
> 
> I informed you that it's been tried (many, many times), and has always failed for the reasons I explain later (if you're even bothering to read the posts, it kind of seems like you're not).
> 
> ...


Still waiting for you to show me where I was wrong. I'll wait right here.

Til then, I'm sure you're still muttering to yourself, "you may be right, but you're still wrong."


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Ok, you had your chance...

On top of the post I just made a minute ago we have..



uberdriverfornow said:


> pss. That is indeed how it works.


Proven wrong - See the difference between an appellate court and a court of first appearance post, actually read it this time).



uberdriverfornow said:


> Clearly you've never heard oral arguments being given in a Supreme Court case.
> 
> I'll just leave this right here again.
> 
> ...


Proven wrong - See both appellate and rule of law posts, in fact, this media proves my rule of law one)



uberdriverfornow said:


> Again, they didn't win because they didn't know how to argue the case as I already showed.
> 
> People that need dogs to get around are not more valuable than those that are actually allergic to dogs. Period. End of story.


Proven wrong - See post about previous cases already listed, along with the range of different defenses, and that, per the ADA, "people that need dogs to get around do trump those who are actually alergic to dogs".



uberdriverfornow said:


> Nothing about my posts are wrong. I stated my opinion about what should happen to the law. I never stated anything that could be construed as being wrong. I stated an opinion based on what the law currently is.
> 
> The sooner you wrap your head around that the better off you'll be.
> 
> Most people at this board have known for a while how the law works. It sounds like you just figured it out and are trying to act smart about it.


Proven wrong - The posts quoted above are neither opinions, nor were they about what should happen to the law. You did, in fact, state things that could be construed (and were) wrong. I've been studying the law longer than Uber has been around, so wrong there too.



uberdriverfornow said:


> ummm...this is a messageboard where people post their opinions.
> 
> If you don't like seeing other peoples opinions you're in the wrong place.


Proving wrong now (as I didn't address it before) - This board is neither just for opinions, and it's possible that someones opinion is that not liking other people's opinions is exactly what they want to see (aka, trolls)



uberdriverfornow said:


> Depends on the opinion. If I say, "I love lemons". I can't be wrong because that's my own opinion that's not based on fact.
> 
> However, if I say, "lemons are blue in color" then you're making an opinion based on facts that are wrong.


Proven wrong - See post about difference between a fact, an opinion, and an idea (you've got these all mixed up).



uberdriverfornow said:


> You're basically talking about what you did in this entire thread. You started out by saying I was wrong but you never proved it. Then you kept back tracking by saying "you may be right, but ...." all throughout this thread.
> 
> I think most people realize the difference between "I love lemons" and "lemons are blue".
> 
> ...


Proven wrong - If you had bothered to read my responses, you'd see where I've proved you wrong, several times. And, again, see post about what an opinion is, because "I love lemons" is not an opinion.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Me, "I think that the law should be changed to be fair to both parties". You, "no you're wrong, you're so wrong. You couldn't be any more wrong. I can't prove you're wrong but I'm going to say it anyhow".


Proving wrong now - You SHOULD have simply said "I think that the law should be changed to be fair to both parties" but you didn't. You are wrong, and I have proven you wrong.


uberdriverfornow said:


> You stated "that's not how it works" after I stated they needed to argue it a different way.
> 
> I then posted an audio recording of an actual case being argued before the Supreme Court and you stated "I stand by my statement" after I had proved that you were wrong.
> 
> ...


Proving wrong now - The "that may be true" part was responding to the one thing you said that wasn't wrong, go review that one, as you were actually heading in a good direction with it. 


uberdriverfornow said:


> Still waiting for you to show me where I was wrong. I'll wait right here.
> 
> Til then, I'm sure you're still muttering to yourself, "you may be right, but you're still wrong."


Proving wrong now - Many examples above of where you've been proven wrong before, therefore your statement that you are still waiting for me to show you where you were wrong is... wrong..  Perhaps you should have been reading my posts instead of just trolling?

Remember that you asked me to post all this (to prove you wrong), I tried to give you a way to not have it all hashed over. I will say you made one post that wasn't "wrong" (the one I responded "that may be true" on), for fairness I'll quote it too...



uberdriverfornow said:


> If a driver isn't allergic to dogs, I get it, they should not be able to legally say no, but for those who are harmed by being in a car with a dog, they should be forced to be harmed.
> 
> But common sense is way too overrated.
> 
> You can feel the opposite all you want, but I can assure you that most people feel the way I do.


I presume you meant "should not be forced to be harmed". THAT is an opinion (came way after most these posts though). Therefore I can agree or disagree with it, but, as you say, can not prove it wrong (or right). Going forward, you should probably just focus on that.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/spin
Still waiting for you to prove that I was wrong.

All that spin means nothing.

You still don't know the difference between an opinion and a fact.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> So if someone is of the opinion that the earth is flat, that cannot be proven wrong? Where do people get garbage ideas like "you can't prove an opinion wrong", anyway? Is this some bumper-sticker slogan people just reflexively regurgitate without thinking, or do they actually believe things like this?
> 
> This is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in the last couple of years, and I've heard a _lot_ of stupid things in the last couple of years, and not just emanating from the back seat out of the mouths of paxes.


It was pretty dumb. Truth.


uberdriverfornow said:


> http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/spin
> Still waiting for you to prove that I was wrong.
> 
> All that spin means nothing.
> ...


Opinions and facts are both species of statements but they differ in scope and degree.

You see, facts are statements (sentences that can be true or false) that are true.

Opinions are statements (again, sentences that can be true or false) that aren't necessarily true. They have a pretty big tie in with the definition of belief, which is an idea one holds (or is convinced) to be true - but isn't necessarily so. There's some argument about whether it is coherant or not to believe you can have an untrue belief but that doesn't really pertain to this issue at the moment.

Because of the way opinions are defined and their relation to facts, as different species of statements, opinions can actually be facts - so long as they are true. When a scientist states that water boils at 100 degrees C at 1 atmosphere, they are giving you a professional opinion. It just happens also to be true, making it a fact. In fact, all opinions have a potential truth value (it is literally in the definition), so there are many opinions that are facts.

Your opinions just happen to be the kind that aren't facts, maybe that's why you are confused here? At any rate, it's weird to offer opinions that you know are wrong, did you think they were somehow true? I mean, in that case they'd be facts and we know that's wrong, so...


uberdriverfornow said:


> http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/spin
> Still waiting for you to prove that I was wrong.
> 
> All that spin means nothing.
> ...


I think you got the law/philosophy nerds on you now dude. I warn you ahead of time that this isn't going to end well for you. You're far too fun to practice on.

Edit: See I even fixed a typo. Nerd-cred banked.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Rushmanyyz said:


> It was pretty dumb. Truth.
> 
> Opinions and facts are both species of statements but they differ in scope and degree.
> 
> ...


Ok let's be real here.

I absolutely love dogs. Grew up with them, lived with them, don't currently have one because dogs aren't allowed where I currently live. Never refused a dog in my car.

Just because I love dogs, am I going to ***** and complain about drivers that are allergic to dogs and wish they didn't have to take them ? No.

I live my life trying to be fair. I try to be unbiased in my opnions.

I challenge you to see where I stated where Uber and Lyft are wrong by trying to force drivers to take service dogs. If I said they were wrong then that statement would be wrong because it's the law.

My statements were that the law should be changed to allow for those allergic to dogs to be able to get a doctors note and not be required to take dogs. You can not say that that opinion is wrong. However, you and the other 4 or so "holier than thou's" that love to post in ADA threads attacking drivers who feel that the law is wrong keep saying my opinion is somehow wrong.

You can not and have not shown any evidence that I'm wrong. Period.

The sooner you and the other holier than thou's start to realize that you were closeminded in your zeal to continously say people are wrong when they aren't the better for yourselves.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Ok let's be real here.
> 
> I absolutely love dogs. Grew up with them, lived with them, don't currently have one because dogs aren't allowed where I currently live. Never refused a dog in my car.
> 
> ...


Ok, that specific opinion, on whether or not you have a belief ( in this case, one that says drivers should be allowed medical exemption from the ADA) is actually an opinion that would be very difficult (though not impossible) to prove false.

I'm pretty sure that this specific statement wasn't what was being called false. Rather, the poor evidence and arguments, that you gave to make the case, were full of factual errors. These are the mountains of claims that Paws, pretty clearly, left you, proverbially, wrecked upon.

It's pretty disingenuous to keep arguing with someone and not read what they wrote. It was written so clearly, and broken down so succinctly, that you should have seen the point. Hell, you were even warned this would end badly for your credibility as an intellectual. So, no sympathy for you.

I disagree with you. You made a really poor case and I suspect that I'm not alone. If you were an honest actor, you might find little tidbits in this thread to learn from - but that's not really what this was all about, was it? Mmmhmm, we were being a naughty naughty troll. Perhaps next time you get bitten by the troll bug, you'll pick a subject a tiny bit less complicated or at least one where you might score at least a point or two. This was sad!


uberdriverfornow said:


> Ok let's be real here.
> 
> I absolutely love dogs. Grew up with them, lived with them, don't currently have one because dogs aren't allowed where I currently live. Never refused a dog in my car.
> 
> ...


Oh, by the way, bias is defined by injecting opinions into a statement of fact. It is therefore impossible to have an unbiased opinion. Sometimes facts actually bias your opinions. I'll give you an example:

Lets say you said, "It is my opinion that water boils at 100 degrees C at 1 atmosphere".

If I asked you why you think this, you would say something like, "I learned it in Chemistry class where we conducted an experiment that proved this was a fact".

I could then respond, "Ah ha! So that experiment biased your opinion"!

You see, bias is just a state of affairs where your beliefs about the truth of a proposition are already determined before an investigation begins. Biases aren't always bad, they are just legally problematic for fairness, since naive skepticism is difficult to establish for the use of giving honest accounts of things that could or could not be true.

Bias is only bad when the bias is false. It is almost entirely the reason that opinions are treated with such scrutiny. As all opinions are biased, the truth behind the foundations of those biases need to be fully investigated before we can trust them or move them fully into the "fact" category.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Rushmanyyz said:


> I'm pretty sure that this specific statement wasn't what was being called false. Rather, the poor evidence and arguments, that you gave to make the case, were full of factual errors. These are the mountains of claims that Paws, pretty clearly, left you, proverbially, wrecked upon.


At no point did Pawtism even remotely prove I was wrong. Just because someone writes a bunch of quotes saying someone is wrong doesn't make them wrong.

However it appears you wanna say I'm wrong because I didn't respond so I'm going to respond to his/her junk this one time to make it clear.



Pawtism said:


> Ok, you had your chance...
> 
> On top of the post I just made a minute ago we have..
> 
> Proven wrong - See the difference between an appellate court and a court of first appearance post, actually read it this time).


Your original reply to me stated "that's not how it works". That was in direct response to me saying they didn't argue it good enough in front of the Supreme Court. I then specifically posted an audio of exactly how it works when I posted that youtube clip.

There is nothing you can do to rebut the fact that I was 100% correct in stating that they didn't argue it good enough.

Again, I even posted an audio of exactly "how it works".

Yet again, this is it






You can try to spin it all you want. But you were wrong and I was right.

Not even worth rebutting all the spin that comes after that part of your post since that alone should be enough to show that you are just trying to spin it so that you don't have to admit that I wasn't wrong.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> At no point did Pawtism even remotely prove I was wrong. Just because someone writes a bunch of quotes saying someone is wrong doesn't make them wrong.
> 
> However it appears you wanna say I'm wrong because I didn't respond so I'm going to respond to his/her junk this one time to make it clear.
> 
> ...


The only spin going on is my my eyeballs when I read this blather. You're not a sincere actor. You're not even reading the responses and I know this because your replies are specifically addressed, yet you keep saying that they aren't.

I'm about to sue you for mayhem as soon as my eyes twist out of my head.

Paws, can I retain you? I have like $5.


----------

