# List Of Passengers We're Allowed To Refuse?



## ten25 (Oct 4, 2015)

I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)

Pax with young children and no car seat
Minors
People with open containers
Someone carrying a weapon
I'm especially interested in knowing who we're able to refuse due to medical conditions that would require you to assist them in getting in/out of your car and/or who may have a wheelchair that doesn't fold and other non-ambulatory passengers ... without being in violation of the ADA or other laws.

Mainly just want to limit my liability in situations where someone should have called for a medical transport or other messed up / dangerous situations...


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

ten25 said:


> I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
> 
> Pax with young children and no car seat
> Minors
> ...


Then you should ask an attorney who specializes in this.


----------



## ten25 (Oct 4, 2015)

Demon said:


> Then you should ask an attorney who specializes in this.


Uber drivers can't afford attorneys :dead:


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

You can refuse service to any rider at your discretion as long as you aren't violating the law by discriminating against them based on their protected status; race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental disability, genetic information, retaliation, pregnancy, or veteran status. 
Regardless of protected status, riders can be refused service if they pose a direct threat to health and safety.


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

ten25 said:


> I'm especially interested in knowing who we're able to refuse due to medical conditions that would require you to assist them in getting in/out of your car and/or who may have a wheelchair that doesn't fold and other non-ambulatory passengers ... without being in violation of the ADA or other laws.
> 
> Mainly just want to limit my liability in situations where someone should have called for a medical transport or other messed up / dangerous situations...


It's a good question. My personal philosophy right now is if I have to get within a foot of the passenger or touch them or their possessions at all then I should cancel the ride. This includes anyone needing help getting into the vehicle. Anyone with a walker (That I have to put in the trunk).

You can get the virus simply by being next to someone with it who is breathing. Being right next to them is very dangerous. Driving them is already dangerous but being close enough to where you are helping them in the car is even worse.

If you go to dentist's office right now there will be a person standing out side wearing a face mask who will ask you questions, take your temperature, make you use hand sanitizer. If you answer any questions in a way which makes them think you might have the virus, you will be refused service. So for anyone saying it is my job to just shut up and risk it, there you go.


----------



## Illini (Mar 14, 2019)

Keep in mind that Uber can still deactivate you for not taking a ride that you can legally decline.


----------



## Director T.Y. Sanchez (Sep 21, 2019)

Uber can deactivate you for any reason or no reason.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Director T.Y. Sanchez said:


> Uber can deactivate you for any reason or no reason.


Until we unionize.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

ten25 said:


> I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
> 
> Pax with young children and no car seat
> Minors
> ...


Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.


----------



## welikecamping (Nov 27, 2018)

I've had passengers try to overload me with luggage. According to Uber support, if I cannot safely carry all the luggage and passengers, I can refuse and request they cancel and order a larger vehicle. I finally got fed up with the 4 college kids with 4 golf bags and 4 giant luggage bags. There was some creative packing to get them to the airport. Do you think they even tipped? I took them but wrote up a very angry message to uber support about it.

Since then, if all of your luggage cannot fit into my large trunk, then I refuse to take you. The passenger cabin is for passengers, not luggage.


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

Trafficat said:


> Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.


Not sure where you got that. Refusing to transport a minor is not illegal in any state. 
Age discrimination refers to older people. Minors are not of legal age so they are not considered competent in a legal sense, can't enter into a legal contract. Discrimination against minors is OK, even required in some cases; alcohol and cigarette sales, casino gambling floor, sexual relations with an adult, etc.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

TemptingFate said:


> Not sure where you got that. Refusing to transport a minor is not illegal in any state.
> Age discrimination refers to older people. Minors are not of legal age so they are not considered competent in a legal sense, can't enter into a legal contract. Discrimination against minors is OK, even required in some cases; alcohol and cigarette sales, casino gambling floor, sexual relations with an adult, etc.


I got it from the Nevada Revised Statutes. The flaw in your thinking is that you assume laws are based on common sense. They are not. Age discrimination is making a decision based upon someone's age. Different levels of government use different definitions for age discrimination. The definition of age discrimination used in federal law in employee discrimination cases refers to old people specifically.

However, this definition is NOT used in state law.

We have discussed this many times on this board with regards to Nevada state law and what it boils down to is that people who don't really have a good understanding of how law works at the state and federal level and are, as far as I can tell, incapable or unwilling to go through the effort to try and understand. I can post my state law, and people will still go "but federal employment law *blah blah blah*." It isn't a matter of federal employment law. It is a state law in my state.

Even when I post it full out, people will say "yeah, it says that, but it doesn't make sense because it was intended to apply to old people". That's not how the law works. And furthermore there is no evidence that Nevada transportation discrimination laws are intended to apply to old people, other than the gut feeling of drivers that hate the idea of transporting kids being upset by that notion.

I've NEVER heard of a driver refusing a passenger for being old, have you? Do you think they passed a law to prevent discrimination against people who are not being discriminated against?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.


discrimination against minors obviously only applies in certain situations


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> discrimination against minors obviously only applies in certain situations


Yes. And this is one of them.

Just like drivers always say "I don't have to pick up service dogs because I'm allergic" until they get their permits taken away for violating service dog rules. People always like to imagine exceptions to the laws that don't exist.

People are free to think discrimination against minors only applies to circumstances they agree with. I however, choose to go with what the actual law says rather than what I feel the law should say.



NRS 706A said:


> 2.  A driver shall not discriminate against a passenger or potential passenger on account of national origin, religion, age, disability, sex, race, color, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.


See this thread here for more discussion on this topic: https://uberpeople.net/threads/suspended-deactivated-for-asking-id.312065/page-10#post-4769479

We can beat the horse all day, but what it boils down to largely is drivers who don't even live in Nevada beating a dead horse about how it could not possibly be true that any state could possibly think a person under the age of 18 should have a need for public transportation services, and people making odd diversions into laws that discriminate against minors for alcohol etc., when the SCOPE of this law only applies to rideshare drivers, although similar laws in Nevada make it so that people under the age of 18 can ride other forms of transportation.

I think that's one of the biggest problems that people have understanding laws is understanding that laws have scope. This state law doesn't apply to bars, or drinking or machinegun ownership or voting. This law has nothing to do with employment. This law only says that a driver shall not discriminate against a passenger based on certain factors, and age is one of them.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

ten25 said:


> I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take.


Dara Khosrowski
Donald Trump
Travis Kalanick


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.


Illinois also


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

I've done over 5,000 rides and I can't remember refusing anyone. I guess there was one group of five or six at Waffle House once that I turned down.


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

So according to this misreading of the law, an Uber driver is compelled to take a solo 5 year old because refusing a child is age discrimination. That's just absurd. 

Unaccompanied minors can be refused service in hotels, bars, liquor stores, gun stores, cigarette sales, R rated movies, etc. They can't rent an apartment or a car. Yet, there are laws against age discrimination in all those businesses. How is it possible? 

Because age discrimination laws were not written to protect minors. 

Uber drivers are not compelled by age discrimination laws to take unaccompanied minors. It's a disservice and a danger to drivers to make them believe that they must take minors. 

Consult a lawyer on the applicable laws. You may be surprised. If a lawyer says I'm wrong on this, please let me know.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

TemptingFate said:


> So according to this misreading of the law, an Uber driver is compelled to take a solo 5 year old because refusing a child is age discrimination. That's just absurd.


There is no misreading. People want to read into it things that aren't there.



> Unaccompanied minors can be refused service in hotels, bars, liquor stores, gun stores, cigarette sales, R rated movies, etc. They can't rent an apartment or a car. Yet, there are laws against age discrimination in all those businesses. How is it possible?


I know this is a difficult concept to grasp... but there are different laws that apply in different circumstances and in different jurisdictions. It is illegal to sell a rifle to a person under 18, but did you know that it violates age discrimination laws in some states to refuse to sell a rifle to someone because they are under the age of 21? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stores-likely-face-more-lawsuits-over-ban-under-21-gun-n854996



> Because age discrimination laws were not written to protect minors.


 Actually, they were. But even if they weren't, it doesn't matter, because the law doesn't care what the intentions of each of the assemblymen and senators who voted on it were. Each assemblyman and senator may have had a different intention.



> Uber drivers are not compelled by age discrimination laws to take unaccompanied minors. It's a disservice and a danger to drivers to make them believe that they must take minors.
> 
> Consult a lawyer on the applicable laws. You may be surprised. If a lawyer says I'm wrong on this, please let me know.


I have quoted actual laws. In this post I provide a link to a lawyer that says Dicks violated the law on a similarly worded statute:



> "The wording of the statute only has one reasonable interpretation, and that is you cannot discriminate against 18-20 year olds in offering the sale of goods which they're legally allowed to purchase, be they rifles, or any other legal product," he said.


I'm not too interested in contacting a lawyer to affirm what the law quite clearly states. But if you can find a lawyer to speak specifically about Nevada law and explain how it doesn't mean what it says, then let me know.

That's why Uber drivers get deactivated over the service dog issue. No matter how you write the law, people will say "Oh, it wasn't meant to apply to me! It is so absurd! No one could have expected the law to require a disabled person with allergies to allow a dog!" Oh, except it does.


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

So you feel compelled to take an unaccompanied 5 year old? Because the law says you must?



Trafficat said:


> People want to read into it things that aren't there.


Indeed.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

ten25 said:


> I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
> 
> Pax with young children and no car seat
> Minors
> ...


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

TemptingFate said:


> So you feel compelled to take an unaccompanied 5 year old? Because the law says you must?


How I feel has no effect on the meaning of the law.


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

Trafficat said:


> How I feel has no effect on the meaning of the law.


You are stating that Uber drivers must, by Nevada law, take unaccompanied minors of any age because to refuse them would violate the statute forbidding age discrimination?


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

Trafficat said:


> Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.


Really? Do you have a citation to a Nevada case or judicial opinion on that point? I did a quick search and didn't see one.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

TemptingFate said:


> You are stating that Uber drivers must, by Nevada law, take unaccompanied minors of any age because to refuse them would violate the statute forbidding age discrimination?


That's what the law says. However, laws also require enforcement. I feel no more compelled to pick up a minor of any age than I do to obey a speed limit sign. If there is a black and white car behind me, yes, I'll obey a speed limit sign.

But let's take our "absurd 3 year old" type example. Suppose a 3 year old calls for an Uber, and when he goes to get in the door, you lock the door and drive off. Will the 3 year old be recording you on his phone and contacting the Nevada Transportation Authority to file a complaint against you?

Now on the other hand, take a politically charged 17 year old who just took a U.S. constitution class. He might actually file a complaint against you for age discrimination. I remember when I was that age, it sounds exactly like something I would do. When I turned 18 I walked into the DMV past their illegal "no guns sign" and forced them to obey the laws to allow guns. If I was 17 and denied an Uber, I'd almost certainly file a complaint.

Personally, I don't tremble in fear to transport kids. I've brought kids to elementary schools before.



JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Really? Do you have a citation to a Nevada case or judicial opinion on that point? I did a quick search and didn't see one.


In order for there to be a case or judicial opinion, someone would have to have (1) filed a complaint. Then, (2) a driver having his permit revoked would have to file a lawsuit against the Nevada Transportation Authority, on the basis that the law doesn't mean what it says it does.

The lack of case/judicial opinion only means that no one has tried to take it to court. Most likely, if there ever even were any complaints of age discrimination, the driver simply had his permit revoked and did not contest it. Every day some driver shows up on these boards saying "I was wrongfully deactivated, I'm going to sue" and how often does this actually pan out?


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 10, 2020)

The only passengers you're allowed to refuse and not risk discrimination claims are white males between the age of 18 and 50 that do not have a "service" animal with them or any physical disabilities. 😉


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Really? Do you have a citation to a Nevada case or judicial opinion on that point? I did a quick search and didn't see one.


The basis for the argument is this Nevada statute:
"NRS 706A.190 ...
2.  A driver shall not discriminate against a passenger or potential passenger on account of national origin, religion, age, disability, sex, race, color, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression."

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-706A.html


Trafficat said:


> That's what the law says. However, laws also require enforcement. I feel no more compelled to pick up a minor of any age than I do to obey a speed limit sign. If there is a black and white car behind me, yes, I'll obey a speed limit sign.
> 
> But let's take our "absurd 3 year old" type example. Suppose a 3 year old calls for an Uber, and when he goes to get in the door, you lock the door and drive off. Will the 3 year old be recording you on his phone and contacting the Nevada Transportation Authority to file a complaint against you?
> 
> ...


Now you're backtracking. I asked if a driver is compelled by law to take an unaccompanied minor and you reply essentially "yes but it's not enforced though it could be enforced." 
Your position is that it is the law as it is literally written.
My position is that you're misunderstanding the law because laws against age discrimination do not apply to minors. 
Carry on and good luck!


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

Trafficat said:


> In order for there to be a case or judicial opinion, someone would have to have (1) filed a complaint. Then, (2) a driver having his permit revoked would have to file a lawsuit against the Nevada Transportation Authority, on the basis that the law doesn't mean what it says it does.
> 
> The lack of judicial opinion only means that no one has tried to take it to court. Most likely, if there ever even were any complaints of age discrimination, the driver simply had his permit revoked and did not contest it. Every day some driver shows up on these boards saying "I was wrongfully deactivated, I'm going to sue" and how often does this actually pan out?


What any statute "really means" is determined by what the case law interpreting that statute says it means. The problem, then, is that until a court rules on a case wherein it clearly interprets the meaning of that language, what it "really means" is undetermined. Only an attorney who is very familiar with whatever Nevada case law exists that interprets how Nevada courts have treated age discrimination cases involving minors in other circumstances is in a good position to say with any degree of confidence what this statute might be interpreted to mean. However, it is a certainty that the fact that Uber policy explicitly prohibits transporting unaccompanied minors would obviously weigh very heavily against what you're suggesting in any case where this issue might come up.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

TemptingFate said:


> Now you're backtracking. I asked if a driver is compelled by law to take an unaccompanied minor and you reply essentially "yes but it's not enforced though it could be enforced."
> Your position is that it is the law as it is literally written.
> My position is that you're misunderstanding the law because laws against age discrimination do not apply to minors.
> Carry on and good luck!


My position is that you are misunderstanding the law because you are confusing a different law with this law.

Mentioning that in the case of really young kids it would be hard to enforce is not backtracking. It is no more legal to deny a minor a ride than to ignore a speed limit. The number of times I've violated the speed limit is much higher than the number of fines I've received.

Realistically, most minors being denied a ride are HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. Probably nearly every driver in the country encounters high school students using the app on a nearly daily basis. And your argument against this being a law is about 5 year olds? How many toddlers have you encountered trying to request a ride? I've never encountered a 5 year old trying to request a ride.

Technically, yes, a 5 year old is protected as much as a 17 year old. But this is not an absurd law. What is absurd is worrying about picking up 5 year olds and trying to use this as a justification against the law being legitimate. There is a built in fail-safe here. Young children do not have cell phones, do not know how to use them, and do not know how to file age discrimination complaints. They probably can't even read your license plate. They are not capable of requesting a ride, and not capable of filing a complaint. So the point is pretty much irrelevant.

If you encounter a genius 5 year old, you better give him a ride in NV or he'll go to the NTA office in person with a video showing you tell him you are denying him based on his age, and he will demand your permit!


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

Trafficat said:


> My position is that you are misunderstanding the law because you are confusing a different law with this law.
> 
> It is no more legal to deny a minor a ride than to ignore a speed limit.
> 
> ...


Your argument is that the Nevada statute forbidding age discrimination in rideshare requires Uber drivers to pick up unaccompanied minors. 
I showed how your argument is absurd by using the example of a 5 year old.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

TemptingFate said:


> Your argument is that the Nevada statute forbidding age discrimination in rideshare requires Uber drivers to pick up unaccompanied minors.
> I showed how your argument is absurd by using the example of a 5 year old.


It doesn't matter if the law is absurd. It is the law. And the law is not absurd. You're trying to use 5 year olds as an excuse to justify denying high school students.

And what is so absurd about driving a 5 year old anyway, other than it being difficult to imagine a scenario where a child of that age could manage to arrange to do it, and would also be put in that position by his parents? When I was a kid, other people's parents used to give me rides places. But that was back before all adults were assumed to be child rapists. You should have a dashcam anyway.


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

Trafficat said:


> It doesn't matter if the law is absurd. It is the law. And the law is not absurd. You're trying to use 5 year olds as an excuse to justify denying high school students.


The law is not absurd. It prohibits discrimination against protected classes. It's very clear and consistent with anti discrimination laws all over the country.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Trafficat said:


> You cannot legally refuse a minor.


...and yet Uber can deactivate you because of...wait for it.....the TOS is the first line that is crossed when you take a minor. Pretty much the only line, no matter what some post here.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

TemptingFate said:


> The law is not absurd. It prohibits discrimination against protected classes. It's very clear and consistent with anti discrimination laws all over the country.


It is very clear. And very clearly written differently than the employment discrimination law you have in mind. The purpose is the opposite. Drivers discriminate against minors, not old people.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

Trafficat said:


> It doesn't matter if the law is absurd. It is the law. And the law is not absurd. You're trying to use 5 year olds as an excuse to justify denying high school students.


If you had said "it might be arguable that it is illegal under Nevada law, because it's possible to read the applicable statute in such a way that it appears to be prohibited", that would be one thing. But you acknowledge that it's never been interpreted by a Nevada court, and that if it were to come before one, it would be a case of first impression, so you have no basis for stating, as if it were undisputed black letter law, that "it is illegal".


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

Trafficat said:


> It is very clear. And very clearly written differently than the employment discrimination law you have in mind.


You are misreading my mind as well as Nevada statutes.


----------



## ten25 (Oct 4, 2015)

I'd say a solid argument is that you're refusing service because the minor is unaccompanied.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> If you had said "it might be arguable that it is illegal under Nevada law, because it's possible to read the applicable statute in such a way that it appears to be prohibited", that would be one thing. But you acknowledge that it's never been interpreted by a Nevada court, and that if it were to come before one, it would be a case of first impression, so you have no basis for stating, as if it were undisputed black letter law, that "it is illegal".


You're certainly correct. This is actually true for most laws, especially laws that are only 5 years old like this one.

However, it is almost certainly not a clear "protection of old people" law. And there is really very little reason to think that it is about that except that everyone who has a job knows the rules HR has to follow. And those laws explicitly are written to apply to people over 40. This one has no such wording.

There has been no court ruling.... HOWEVER, courts generally interpret laws as written. I'm not sure why everyone thinks the courts will rule differently than it is written. Actually, I know exactly WHY they think it. Because they think that all age discrimination laws have the same meaning as the federal employment law which has specific language that specifically states it does not apply to people under the age of 40.

In Nevada, they recently passed a law 2 years ago or so that made it a felony to carry a "pneumatic gun" concealed. There have been no cases I am aware of. So you could say "It might be arguable that it is illegal..." but really, unless you think the court has any decent chance of overturning it, you're pretty much going to say, "they passed a law making this illegal".

I didn't write "it is arguable that the law could outlaw blah blah blah" because to me, it seems pretty clearly written. And quite clearly detested by most drivers who heavily discriminate against minors.

I'd like to see a single legal argument that would be used to overturn someone's permit revocation. And by a legal argument, I mean the type of thing a lawyer would say to invalidate the law. Not "This law is absurd! 3 year olds could ride Uber! Drivers are rapists!"


----------



## GreatWhiteHope (Sep 18, 2018)

ten25 said:


> I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
> 
> Pax with young children and no car seat
> Minors
> ...


The Trannys

You absolutely cannot turn down the Trannys


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

Trafficat said:


> You're certainly correct. This is actually true for most laws, especially laws that are only 5 years old like this one.
> 
> However, it is almost certainly not a clear "protection of old people" law. And there is really very little reason to think that it is about that except that everyone who has a job knows the rules HR has to follow. And those laws explicitly are written to apply to people over 40. This one has no such wording.
> 
> ...


With all due respect, unless you are or have been a member of the Nevada bar, this is just your speculation as to what you think a Nevada court would be likely to do. On the other hand, there is the explicit policy stated by Uber, the rationale for which is abundantly clear. Try asking a couple of practicing Nevada lawyers, and see if any of them will tell you that they think it would be illegal for an Uber driver to refuse to transport an unaccompanied minor.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> With all due respect, unless you are or have been a member of the Nevada bar, this is just your speculation as to what you think a Nevada court would be likely to do. On the other hand, there is the explicit policy stated by Uber, the rationale for which is abundantly clear. Try asking a couple of practicing Nevada lawyers, and see if any of them will tell you that they think it would be illegal for an Uber driver to refuse to transport an unaccompanied minor.


And your assertion that you can discriminate based on age is no different. Are you a member of the Nevada bar?

I'm not worried about losing my permit for denying a ride to a minor because I'm not denying minors. Perhaps someone who wants to take the risk should hire a lawyer to put on retainer should he get his permit taken away for it. I highly doubt any lawyer is going to dispense a free opinion on this matter. The law is pretty clear to me so I don't think I'd learn much from asking a lawyer. I'd be surprised to hear a lawyer state you can freely ignore this law as long as the person isn't a senior citizen.

The original poster on this thread specifically asked for what is allowed by law, not what Uber policy was. Although Uber states a driver CAN be deactivated for transporting a minor, Uber knows I have transported a minor and I have not been deactivated for it. Until Uber actually deactivates a driver for taking a minor, there is no damages and thus no lawsuit potential. I have however, opted out of binding arbitration.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

ten25 said:


> I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
> 
> Pax with young children and no car seat
> Minors
> ...


People moving. Especially if they have a piano.


----------



## ColtDelta (Nov 11, 2019)

ten25 said:


> I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
> 
> Pax with young children and no car seat
> Minors
> ...


Refuse Sneezy, Coughy, Dopey, Druggy, and Thuggy. But these days you should definitely take Doc. He may come in handy.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

From Wikipedia because if they say it there it must be true..
U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information (added in 2008). Many state laws also give certain protected groups special protection against harassment and discrimination, as do many employer policies. Although it is not required by federal law, state law and employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation.[1] The following characteristics are "protected" by United States federal anti-discrimination law:


Race - Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion - Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin - Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) - Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex - Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets 'sex' to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity[2]

Pregnancy - Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Familial status - Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Prohibits discrimination for having children, with an exception for senior housing. Also prohibits making a preference for those with children.
Disability status - Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status - Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information - Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Individual states can and do create other classes for protection under state law.


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Lets take this argument just a little farther into the absurd, shall we?

Let's say that the minor in question isn't actually five years old. Lets say he's barely a day over TWO years old.

He picked up his mom's phone and ordered up an Uber. And you're the driver. And then he says to you "I'm running away from home."

There has to be a point where you say that he's too young to ride Uber by himself.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

There's no federal law protecting young people from discrimination, period.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Yes. And this is one of them.
> 
> Just like drivers always say "I don't have to pick up service dogs because I'm allergic" until they get their permits taken away for violating service dog rules. People always like to imagine exceptions to the laws that don't exist.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but if you think it would fly for a pax to tell you to transport their unaccompanied 2 week old baby, you would be out of your mind.

Use some common sense.

Even the age discrimination acts themselves do not directly apply to minors.

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/regulatory/statutes/age-discrimination-act


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> I got it from the Nevada Revised Statutes. The flaw in your thinking is that you assume laws are based on common sense. They are not. Age discrimination is making a decision based upon someone's age. Different levels of government use different definitions for age discrimination. The definition of age discrimination used in federal law in employee discrimination cases refers to old people specifically.
> 
> However, this definition is NOT used in state law.
> 
> ...


What attorney or judge are you citing here?


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Even the age discrimination acts themselves do not directly apply to minors.
> 
> https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc
> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/regulatory/statutes/age-discrimination-act


Those are not the age discrimination acts in question. Different set of laws. Not federal level. State level. Nothing to do with anything passed in 1975. I am referring to a law passed on the state level in 2015.


Demon said:


> What attorney or judge are you citing here?


I never mentioned any attorney or judge. I have cited the Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 706A, and quoted the text that is published on the leg.state.nv.us, a public website. The statutes are voted on by elected officials that are part of the state assembly and state senate.

A federal law is the United States Code. Federal courts generally rule about matters concerning federal laws. State law in Nevada is the Nevada Revised Statutes, and are generally the jurisdiction of state courts. We live in a system with layers of laws. There are certain things that are illegal discrimination in the state of Nevada, which are not illegal discrimination under federal law. There are state discrimination laws in almost every state that are stricter than the federal laws. In every state you must obey federal law, but in your own state, you must obey the laws of your own state in addition to federal law. Federal law does not forbid state governments from creating classes of protected people that are not protected under federal law.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> Those are not the age discrimination acts in question. Different set of laws. Not federal level. State level. Nothing to do with anything passed in 1975. I am referring to a law passed on the state level in 2015.
> 
> I never mentioned any attorney or judge. I have cited the Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 706A, and quoted the text that is published on the leg.state.nv.us, a public website. The statutes are voted on by elected officials that are part of the state assembly and state senate.


So you really can't say what the law means and you're not citing the entire law, just the part you want us to see.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> So you really can't say what the law means and you're not citing the entire law, just the part you want us to see.


Actually, I copied and pasted the law, word-for-word verbatim. I literally selected the text, pressed copy, then pressed paste. I did not alter it at all. You can find it right here on the government website:
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-706A.html#NRS706ASec190
The thing is, this is a separate, ADDITIONAL law, to federal law. The links people are posting to federal law do not matter, because this has NOTHING to do with that law. These are two different rules. Federal law says you can't discriminate in employing people over the age of 40. State law says NOTHING about the age of 40 or any other specific age. It says simply, that one cannot discriminate based on age.

Two different laws, two different ways of phrasing. One specifically applies to a protected subset, one does not apply to a specific subset.

It's like if you had a federal law that said "No discriminating against women" and a state law that said "No discriminating based on gender" and then you are trying to say, "It's okay to discriminate against men, because the federal law only makes it illegal to discriminate against women". Just as an example for the reasoning here.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Actually, I copied and pasted the law, word-for-word verbatim. You can find it right here on the government website:
> https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-706A.html#NRS706ASec190
> The thing is, this is a separate, ADDITIONAL law, to federal law. The links people are posting to federal law do not matter, because this has NOTHING to do with that law. These are two different rules. Federal law says you can't discriminate in employing people over the age of 40. State law says NOTHING about the age of 40 or any other specific age. It says simply, that one cannot discriminate based on age.
> 
> ...


Nothing in the statute you posted directly refers to age discrimination as it relates to minors.

NRS 706A.190  Adoption of policy prohibiting discrimination; prohibition against discrimination; accommodations for passenger who requires wheelchair-accessible vehicle.



> 1.  A transportation network company shall adopt a policy which prohibits discrimination against a passenger or potential passenger on account of national origin, religion, age, disability, sex, race, color, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
> 
> 2.  A driver shall not discriminate against a passenger or potential passenger on account of national origin, religion, age, disability, sex, race, color, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
> 
> 3.  A transportation network company shall provide to each passenger an opportunity to indicate whether the passenger requires transportation in a motor vehicle that is wheelchair accessible. If the company cannot provide the passenger with transportation services in a motor vehicle that is wheelchair accessible, the company must direct the passenger to an alternative provider or means of transportation that is wheelchair accessible, if available.


You really need to use common sense when trying to apply law. Where the law is ambiguous, it is going to favor the defendant.

As I showed already, federal law applies to age discrimination as it relates to those 40 and older.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

> You really need to use common sense when trying to apply law. Where the law is ambiguous, it is going to favor the defendant.


How is the law ambiguous? It says you cannot discriminate against a passenger on account of age.

Is it not discrimination on account of age, if you are denying people a ride, because you do not approve of their age?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> Actually, I copied and pasted the law, word-for-word verbatim. I literally selected the text, pressed copy, then pressed paste. I did not alter it at all. You can find it right here on the government website:
> https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-706A.html#NRS706ASec190
> The thing is, this is a separate, ADDITIONAL law, to federal law. The links people are posting to federal law do not matter, because this has NOTHING to do with that law. These are two different rules. Federal law says you can't discriminate in employing people over the age of 40. State law says NOTHING about the age of 40 or any other specific age. It says simply, that one cannot discriminate based on age.
> 
> ...


You actually didn't and you're still not qualified to say what it means . What you have quoted says that there can be no discrimination against passengers or potential passengers and neither of those can be an unaccompanied minor. Unless the law somewhere defines exactly what a passenger or potential passenger is. The law also states that drivers won't take anyone against regulations, does regulations mean Uber/Lyft regulations?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> How is the law ambiguous? It says you cannot discriminate against a passenger on account of age.
> 
> Is it not discrimination on account of age, if you are denying people a ride, because you do not approve of their age?


I guess in this case, it's asking you to use common sense. You can not be forced to take a 2 week old baby on an unaccompanied ride simply because the mom is crying age discrimination.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> You actually didn't and you're still not qualified to say what it means . What you have quoted says that there can be no discrimination against passengers or potential passengers and neither of those can be an unaccompanied minor. Unless the law somewhere defines exactly what a passenger or potential passenger is. The law also states that drivers won't take anyone against regulations, does regulations mean Uber/Lyft regulations?


 Where does it say that neither can be an unaccompanied minor? That is not in the law.

Regulations specifically refer to the Nevada Administrative Code.

If a law does not define something, the common dictionary definition is used.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> Where does it say that neither can be an unaccompanied minor? That is not in the law.
> 
> Regulations specifically refer to the Nevada Administrative Code.


You didn't answer my question. How/Where does the law define what a passenger or potential passenger is?
Where does it say regulations refer to NAC?


----------



## LADryver (Jun 6, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.


You can. It is not legally discrimination if they are not in the age of majority.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> You didn't answer my question. How/Where does the law define what a passenger or potential passenger is?
> Where does it say regulations refer to NAC?


It says the regulations refer to the NAC right here, basically, but this is more of a government 101 type of thing that pretty much goes without saying even though in this case the law is quite explicit. Regulations refer to government rules that are passed by executive bodies rather than legislative bodies.


> NRS 706A.030  "Authority" defined.  "Authority" means the Nevada Transportation Authority.
> 
> (Added to NRS by 2015, 1401)
> ...
> ...


NRS is law, NAC is regulations on the state level, just like on the federal level, USC is law and CFR is regulations. Laws don't refer to company policies as regulations. That's just not the way laws work.

Here are the regulations under the NAC https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-706A.html#NAC706ASec010

The law does not define passengers. Can you think of a reason why the ordinary dictionary definiton should not apply?

The law does state:



> 3.  A driver shall not, at the time the driver picks up a passenger, refuse or neglect to provide transportation services to any orderly passenger unless the driver can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Authority that:
> 
> (a) The driver has good reason to fear for the driver's personal safety; or
> 
> ...


So basically if a person can ride in your vehicle, and they are orderly, the only justification you have to not carry them is if a law or regulation forbids it. Rideshare company policy is not a regulation. The same law that says drivers cannot discriminate based on age also says the TNC companies cannot discriminate based on age.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> It says the regulations refer to the NAC right here, basically, but this is more of a government 101 type of thing that pretty much goes without saying even though in this case the law is quite explicit. Regulations refer to government rules that are passed by executive bodies rather than legislative bodies.
> 
> NRS is law, NAC is regulations on the state level, just like on the federal level, USC is law and CFR is regulations. Laws don't refer to company policies as regulations. That's just not the way laws work.
> 
> ...


They must book the ride through the app, minors alone can't do that.
The dictionary definition may not apply. Without a definitive definition of how the law defines passengers or potential passengers you can't claim this law applies to unaccompanied minors.



Trafficat said:


> It says the regulations refer to the NAC right here, basically, but this is more of a government 101 type of thing that pretty much goes without saying even though in this case the law is quite explicit. Regulations refer to government rules that are passed by executive bodies rather than legislative bodies.
> 
> NRS is law, NAC is regulations on the state level, just like on the federal level, USC is law and CFR is regulations. Laws don't refer to company policies as regulations. That's just not the way laws work.
> 
> ...


Where does it say the regulations the law refers to means the NAC? You've just cited the entire law, not the definition I'm asking for.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> They must book the ride through the app, minors alone can't do that.


It seems minors do book rides through the app. It doesn't seem that Uber nor Lyft prevent them from signing up for an account.



> The dictionary definition may not apply. Without a definitive definition of how the law defines passengers or potential passengers you can't claim this law applies to unaccompanied minors.


If you have a compelling argument that some other definition of passenger applies, I'd be interested to hear the justifications for it.



Demon said:


> Where does it say the regulations the law refers to means the NAC? You've just cited the entire law, not the definition I'm asking for.





> NRS 706A.030  "Authority" defined.  "Authority" means the Nevada Transportation Authority.
> 
> NRS 706A.100  Regulations.  The Authority shall adopt such regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.


Regulations are defined by NRS 706A.100. They refer to regulations adopted by the Nevada Transportation Authority. They are the government agency that has been given authority by this statute to form regulations. Regulations for NRS Chapter 706A are found under NAC Chapter 706A, where one would expect to find regulations.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> It seems minors do book rides through the app. It doesn't seem that Uber nor Lyft prevent them from signing up for an account.
> 
> If you have a compelling argument that some other definition of passenger applies, I'd be interested to hear the justifications for it.
> 
> ...


Minors are not allowed to book through the app.
I don't need to provide a definition, I'm asking you to show where passengers or potential passengers are defined as applying to this law. It's your claim that a driver can't turn down an unaccompanied minor, but until you show that an unaccompanied minor can be a passenger or potential passenger that's not a claim you can make.



Trafficat said:


> It seems minors do book rides through the app. It doesn't seem that Uber nor Lyft prevent them from signing up for an account.
> 
> If you have a compelling argument that some other definition of passenger applies, I'd be interested to hear the justifications for it.
> 
> ...


Please provide a link to these regulation.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> Minors are not allowed to book through the app.
> I don't need to provide a definition, I'm asking you to show where passengers or potential passengers are defined as applying to this law. It's your claim that a driver can't turn down an unaccompanied minor, but until you show that an unaccompanied minor can be a passenger or potential passenger that's not a claim you can make.


There may be merit to your argument that the word "passenger" doesn't include a minor, but I see no legal basis for that argument and I would be interested to see what legal reasoning you have that a minor cannot be a passenger. Passenger does not have an explicit definition, so it means whatever the dictionary says, or whatever court precedent has been set. I'm personally not aware of any precedent that has been set that would prevent a minor from being a passenger. A minor can ride a taxi, so why should a minor be barred from an Uber?

Minors are not allowed to book through the app? All I know is, I get a ride request, and I show up. And their name matches the name on the account. They booked through the digital network as required by law, and are equipped with a cell phone that has my face on the screen as the driver that is supposed to pick them up.

It may be against Uber official policy for minors to ride, yet Uber doesn't stop them from signing up. And if Uber did stop them from signing up, they would be violating NRS 706A based on my reading of it. If a legal contract is in violation of the law, at least that part of the contract is void.

It seems to me that there is nothing that Uber, nor the law, is doing to prevent minors from riding.



> Please provide a link to these regulation.


https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-706A.html#NAC706ASec010


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> There may be merit to your argument that the word "passenger" doesn't include a minor, but I see no legal basis for that argument and I would be interested to see what legal reasoning you have that a minor cannot be a passenger. Passenger does not have an explicit definition, so it means whatever the dictionary says, or whatever court precedent has been set. I'm personally not aware of any precedent that has been set that would prevent a minor from being a passenger. A minor can ride a taxi, so why should a minor be barred from an Uber?
> 
> Minors are not allowed to book through the app? All I know is, I get a ride request, and I show up. And their name matches the name on the account. They booked through the digital network as required by law, and are equipped with a cell phone that has my face on the screen as the driver that is supposed to pick them up.
> 
> ...


I don't need to provide a definition or legal reasoning. It's not my claim, it's yours, and the onus is on you to show how the word passenger or potential passenger is being defined in regards to this law. If you can't do that, you can't make this claim.

Uber and Lyft have specifically told drivers to ask for ID so you know if the person is a minor or not and to make sure the person you're picking up is the passenger you're supposed to pick up.

Nevada regulations prohibit a driver allowing someone in their car who is not a passenger or the guest of a passenger.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> I don't need to provide a definition or legal reasoning. It's not my claim, it's yours, and the onus is on you to show how the word passenger or potential passenger is being defined in regards to this law. If you can't do that, you can't make this claim.


Actually, you're the one trying to claim that passenger does not have its ordinary definition. The word passenger is not defined by law because the lawmakers did not forsee any confusion about what passenger meant. The only thing that is known about the definition of passenger is the context for which it is used in the rest of the law. And the rest of the law does not seem to use the word passenger in a restrictive way.

When the NAC says:


NAC 706A.350  Lawful capacity. ([URL='https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-706A.html#NRS706ASec100' said:


> NRS 706A.100[/URL], 706A.110) ]
> While on call, a driver shall not exceed the lawful capacity of his or her motor vehicle or transport more passengers than the number of safety belts in the vehicle.


Does it mean that I can transport 4 adults and 4 additional children in my car that only has 5 seatbelts? Or is it likely that a child might be considered a passenger?



> Uber and Lyft have specifically told drivers to ask for ID so you know if the person is a minor or not and to make sure the person you're picking up is the passenger you're supposed to pick up.


And yet, on the other thread I linked to, it got started because Uber deactivated the driver when the driver demanded to see the rider's ID. Uber says no minors and we should check ID, and then Uber simultaneously lets minors register and punishes drivers that refuse them. I get the general feeling with Uber that their PR department publishes rules that sound nice, and their HR/Legal teams enforce an entirely different set of rules designed to maximize profit and minimize blowback.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> Actually, you're the one trying to claim that passenger does not have its ordinary definition. The word passenger is not defined by law because the lawmakers did not forsee any confusion about what passenger meant. The only thing that is known about the definition of passenger is the context for which it is used in the rest of the law. And the rest of the law does not seem to use the word passenger in a restrictive way.
> 
> When the NAC says:
> 
> ...


You're ascribing me a position and debating that instead of what I'm writing. I'm not claiming to know how a judge would define passenger or potential passenger and neither do you, but you're making the claim that you do know, I'm asking you to back that up and you can't .

There's a law in place about how many passengers you can transport. You're trying to change the topic.

Do you have something in writing from Uber that they deactivated the driver for asking for ID?


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> You're ascribing me a position and debating that instead of what I'm writing. I'm not claiming to know how a judge would define passenger or potential passenger and neither do you, but you're making the claim that you do know, I'm asking you to back that up and you can't .


I never made such a claim. And no man could, except the judge that got the case on that day. Two different judges could rule differently. I only claimed that generally speaking, the dictionary definition of a word is used if something is not defined by law. That's the legal tradition.



> There's a law in place about how many passengers you can transport. You're trying to change the topic.


So are you claiming that when in chapter 706, the word "passenger" is used to say you can't have more passengers than seatbelts, the definition of "passenger" is different than when, also in chapter 706, the word "passenger" is used as the thing you cannot discriminate against?

The use of the same word in different places in the same chapter does lend inference as to what that word means.

If it was meaningless to try and understand a law based on what was published, laws would not be published. That seems to sum up your basic argument. Nothing in the law has any meaning, unless you are the judge. While judges can rule strangely, in actuality, there are a lot of patterns and trends. Certain thing have fairly consistent meanings. Like the word regulation is found to mean the same thing, in like 100% of cases I've seen. The word passenger, I don't know. But it is not invalid to suggest that the dictionary definition or the other places in the law where the word is used are relevant.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> I never made such a claim. And no man could, except the judge that got the case on that day. I only claimed that generally speaking, the dictionary definition of a word is used if something is not defined by law.
> 
> If it was meaningless to try and understand a law based on what was published, laws would not be published. That seems to sum up your basic argument. Nothing in the law has any meaning, unless you are the judge. While judges can rule strangely, in actuality, there are a lot of patterns and trends.
> 
> ...


Please cite the court case you're referencing for using the dictionary definition if the law is not defined legally. 
No, I'm not talking at all about seat belts. I've already pointed out that's just you trying to change the topic.
Do you have it in writing from Uber that the driver you mentioned was deactivated for asking for ID?


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> No, I'm not talking at all about seat belts. I've already pointed out that's just you trying to change the topic.


Actually, I did not.You asked how passenger was defined and suggested the term did not include minors. I used contextual evidence to show that it does in fact include minors, unless you think the law doesn't intend minors to have seatbelts.



Demon said:


> Do you have it in writing from Uber that the driver you mentioned was deactivated for asking for ID?


And who is trying to change the subject? I thought this was about the law.



Demon said:


> Please cite the court case you're referencing for using the dictionary definition if the law is not defined legally.


This is basic common law legal tradition.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> Actually, I did not.You asked how passenger was defined and suggested the term did not include minors. I used contextual evidence to show that it does in fact include minors, unless you think the law doesn't intend minors to have seatbelts.
> 
> 
> And who is trying to change the subject? I thought this was about the law.


Still not talking about seatbelts.
YOU brought up that Uber would deactivate for asking for ID, not me. I just asked you (this is now the third time I'm asking so I guess it isn't true) for proof.
Please cite the court case that says common definitions are used.



Trafficat said:


> Actually, I did not.You asked how passenger was defined and suggested the term did not include minors. I used contextual evidence to show that it does in fact include minors, unless you think the law doesn't intend minors to have seatbelts.
> 
> 
> And who is trying to change the subject? I thought this was about the law.
> ...


Please cite where this common law legal tradition comes from.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

> Please cite the court case that says common definitions are used.


There isn't "a court case" there is hundreds of years of legal tradition. Kind of summed up in this excerpt from this argument against the tradition:

https://webcache.googleusercontent....&rep=rep1&type=pdf+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


> One frequently invoked rule requires that words that
> are not defined by a statute be given their ordinary meaning by the interpreting court. In recent
> years, the United States Supreme Court has increasingly relied upon dictionary definitions in
> applying this rule. The Court's use of dictionaries as authority for its interpretations incorporates
> ...


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> There isn't "a court case" there is hundreds of years of legal tradition. Kind of summed up in this excerpt from this argument against the tradition:
> 
> https://webcache.googleusercontent....&rep=rep1&type=pdf+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


That pretty much proves you can't make the claim. Uber defines passenger as someone over 18 who has an account.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> That pretty much proves you can't make the claim.


No, what it proves is that I've read enough court cases to know that this is a basic element of judicial rulings. This is one of those things that is discussed in practically every court case that involves a matter of law. I quoted from a book that cited the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court is not a high enough authority on the law, then I digress.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/ordinary-meaning-rule/


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> No, what it proves is that I've read enough court cases to know that this is a basic element of judicial rulings. This is one of those things that is discussed in practically every court case that involves a matter of law. I quoted from a book that cited the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court is not a high enough authority on the law, then I digress.


Yes, what you just cited proves you can't make the claim you keep trying to make. What you referenced the insurance company didn't define what a motor vehicle was. The case you're talking about is a civil case, we're talking about state law, those are two different things. But in our case Uber does define who can and can't go online and use the app, and Uber does say that a minor can't use the app.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> Yes, what you just cited proves you can't make the claim you keep trying to make. What you referenced the insurance company didn't define what a motor vehicle was. The case you're talking about is a civil case, we're talking about state law, those are two different things. But in our case Uber does define who can and can't go online and use the app, and Uber does say that a minor can't use the app.


Some lawyers wrote this:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/ordinary-meaning-rule/


> Ordinary meaning rule is a principle of statutory interpretation that when a word is not defined in a statute or other legal instrument, the court normally construes it in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning. This rule guides courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself.
> 
> According to this rule, statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise. However, if the words are clear, they must be applied, even though the intention of the legislator may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> Some lawyers wrote this:
> https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/ordinary-meaning-rule/


This doesn't help your case.
Do you have it in writing that Uber will deactivate for asking for ID?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.


That makes no sense. What about the TOS? You can't enter a contract if you're a minor so you can't have an account unless you lied and if you're an adult and allowing a minor to use your account that's a no on 2 counts: you can't allow someone access to use your account and you agreed to not order a ride for someone who is a minor. So you're not refusing to drive a minor, you're refusing to drive someone who either committed fraud to get the account or who has been sent a ride by someone who has no contractual right to do that.

And all that aside, if you can't refuse a minor legally, what is a minor? Under 18? So you can't refuse a 4 year old who walks up with no adult in sight to ride? Or the baby mom brings out and straps in a carseat with directions to take him to grandma?

And don't say that's silly, use common sense, because if it's the law then it has to be specific.



TemptingFate said:


> The basis for the argument is this Nevada statute:
> "NRS 706A.190 ...
> 2.  A driver shall not discriminate against a passenger or potential passenger on account of national origin, religion, age, disability, sex, race, color, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression."
> 
> ...


Thanks because I replied to him then read further...lol

Yes, age discrimination doesn't apply to minors. I guess he missed that part while studying the law.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Demon said:


> This doesn't help your case.


What could lawyers possibly know right?


Fuzzyelvis said:


> That makes no sense. What about the TOS? You can't enter a contract if you're a minor so you can't have an account unless you lied and if you're an adult and allowing a minor to use your account that's a no on 2 counts: you can't allow someone access to use your account and you agreed to not order a ride for someone who is a minor. So you're not refusing to drive a minor, you're refusing to drive someone who either committed fraud to get the account or who has been sent a ride by someone who has no contractual right to do that.
> 
> And all that aside, if you can't refuse a minor legally, what is a minor? Under 18? So you can't refuse a 4 year old who walks up with no adult in sight to ride? Or the baby mom brings out and straps in a carseat with directions to take him to grandma?
> 
> ...


I like your fraud spin but if Uber denies an account to a minor they violate the same law. Uber requires the contract, the law does not.

The law does not have an age cut off. The law is not about common sense, and even if it was, why should not a professional driver transport a kid? Taxis take kids, why not Uber?

A lack of car seat is an entirely different issue since the law requires certain safety equipment.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

Screw the Law.. this is what Matters as Far as being deactivated..

_Both Uber and Lyft have their own set of rules about transporting unaccompanied minors. They both explicitly *don't allow users under the age of 18* to setup an account or use their services without an adult present. Uber's rule says: *"A rider must be at least 18 years of age* to have an Uber account and request rides_


----------



## ghrdrd (Jun 26, 2019)

Demon said:


> Then you should ask an attorney who specializes in this.


UP has experts from all walks of life.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

All any passenger need do is invoke the, _Driver cancelled on me once they saw I have a Service Animal,_ Lie (even if no dog of any type present). Be wise and shrewd, in how you _Refuse Passengers._


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Yes. And this is one of them.
> 
> Just like drivers always say "I don't have to pick up service dogs because I'm allergic" until they get their permits taken away for violating service dog rules. People always like to imagine exceptions to the laws that don't exist.
> 
> ...


You 100% wrong. Uber's insurance would not cover a claim that involved an unaccompanied minor.

Don't believe me, call an attorney or insurance adjuster. Could prove you wrong inside of 10 minutes.

One more reason why many Uber drivers are not even worth minimum wage.

My two cents.
&#128526;


----------



## Christinebitg (Jun 29, 2018)

Demon said:


> They must book the ride through the app, minors alone can't do that.


That's correct, because a minor cannot agree to a contract.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.


Does the law specifically say you can't refuse minors? Whenever there's a law about age discrimination, it doesn't include minors because the law doesn't "really" consider them "full" people.

Unlawful imprisonment is against the law, but parents still ground kids, yanno? Make them do chores for no pay, etc.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

ten25 said:


> I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
> 
> Pax with young children and no car seat
> Minors
> ...


You can refuse anyone as long as you have a legitimate reason.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> What could lawyers possibly know right?
> 
> I like your fraud spin but if Uber denies an account to a minor they violate the same law. Uber requires the contract, the law does not.
> 
> ...


Lawyers read case law & know how & when it applies.


----------



## NauticalWheeler (Jun 15, 2019)

There was a wonderful, magical thread a while back where an ant enlightened everyone to the fact that Uber doesn't require drivers to provide trunk space.😆😆


----------



## Ardery (May 26, 2017)

ten25 said:


> Pax with young children and no car seat
> Minors
> People with open containers
> Someone carrying a


old news, genius. 
this list is years old. 
thanks for staying in the NOW.


----------



## Smell My Finger (Jun 11, 2019)

Just checked with my attorney and according to him, and I quote " You are legally allowed to refuse service to 1) Dallas Cowboys fans 2) Anyone wearing a MAGA hat and 3) Anyone wearing sock with sandals". Sounds reasonable to me.....

Don't forget to wash your hands kids...


----------



## Ubertool (Jan 24, 2020)

Demon said:


> Lawyers read case law & know how & when it applies.


& is not the proper word , use and &#128514;&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;
Seeing as you felt the need to correct my usage of a word in another post , now go back to proving how smart you are to yourself , son








How much smarter do you feel now, troll someone else


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Ubertool said:


> & is not the proper word , use and &#128514;&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;
> Seeing as you felt the need to correct my usage of a word in another post , now go back to proving how smart you are to yourself , son
> 
> View attachment 438282
> ...


Could you rephrase that so it's in the form of a language?


----------



## Ubertool (Jan 24, 2020)

Demon said:


> Could you rephrase that so it's in the form of a language?


Is that all you got ? Dang I was hoping we could spare a few rounds , $&$& off , is that a language you understand ? Don't answer as that was a rhetorical question mr law professor doubling as a uber superhero by night . Bye Felicia &#128567;&#128567;&#128567;


----------



## Amos69 (May 17, 2019)

Every single one! No exceptions. You just have to be smarter than the passenger.

My AR the last three weeks is 2%


----------



## flattenmycurve (Mar 19, 2020)

Amos69 said:


> Every single one! No exceptions. You just have to be smarter than the passenger.
> 
> My AR the last three weeks is 2%


I'll raise you my 67% cancel rate


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

UberLaLa said:


> All any passenger need do is invoke the, _Driver cancelled on me once they saw I have a Service Animal,_ Lie (even if no dog of any type present). Be wise and shrewd, in how you _Refuse Passengers._


I find it best to minimize contact. Ideally no contact at all. Leave it open that it was a technical glitch or something that Uber did. Once you tell the passenger the reason they will tend to get upset because "the lowly Uber driver got the best of them" (seriously many of these people see us like servants) so they will look to get back at you in some way.


----------



## Meech215 (Nov 12, 2019)

Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart Customers


----------



## DonRon (Sep 4, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.


So how do liquor stores justify not selling alcohol to minors?


----------



## Ubertool (Jan 24, 2020)

DonRon said:


> So how do liquor stores justify not selling alcohol to minors?


U

Can't be serious


----------



## Jon77 (Dec 6, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Dara Khosrowski
> Donald Trump
> Travis Kalanick


 I would give a ride to all three of them and then cough on em all, like an aisle of putrid vegetables.

One of them is a well-known Germaphobe.
He would come unraveled, although it looks like he may be unraveling right now, even without my magic cough.


----------



## LyftUberFuwabolewa (Feb 7, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Until we unionize.


And then besides having the company over for us we have a bunch of union scumbags.

Unions are great in the early days when they're actually doing what they're supposed to, but once they realize they are an entity on to themselves they are number one priority is self-preservation, they become the parasite and we become the host.

As far as needing to give assistance to riders I play it on a case-by-case basis. It's like what the Supreme Court said about pornography, I know it when I see it.

If it's an older person who needs to hold my arm for a moment to steady themselves that's fine.

A lot depends on the situation and the attitude of the rider.

If it's somebody I'm going to have to forklift in and out of the vehicle, needing to use any kind of force I will not do that. I am not trained nor insured for that.


----------



## Nina2 (Oct 6, 2018)

You can refuse anyone except for race religion or service dog or any pets for that matter


----------



## LyftUberFuwabolewa (Feb 7, 2019)

Nina2 said:


> You can refuse anyone except for race religion or service dog or any pets for that matter


There's one guy on this forum who told me that when I canceled a ride because it was booked as a regular Lyft ride but should have been an XL, and part of the reason for that was because it included a wheelchair, that I am going to be activated for refusing a wheelchair.

I'm still waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting let me check, still not deactivated, waiting, waiting, waiting

Though really I think the guy is just trolling me because he has a crush on me.


----------



## Ubertool (Jan 24, 2020)

Nina2 said:


> You can refuse anyone except for race religion or service dog or any pets for that matter


I refuse if they are ugly


----------



## LyftUberFuwabolewa (Feb 7, 2019)

I just canceled on a trans amputee furry.

Do you think I’m gonna get deactivated?


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> There isn't "a court case" there is hundreds of years of legal tradition. Kind of summed up in this excerpt from this argument against the tradition:
> 
> https://webcache.googleusercontent....&rep=rep1&type=pdf+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


And by that same "hundreds of years of legal tradition", minors aren't included.

A minor doesn't have Free Speech unless his/her parent/guardian allows them to. The minor can't bring any charges of civil rights violations against anyone unless their parent/guardian does it on their behalf -- at least not until they reach the age of 18, at which point the statutory limit clock starts ticking, but, even then, they'd have an uphill battle because they'd have to prove not only the charge, but that their parent/guardian was WRONG for not taking up the fight.

I remember having this argument with my school counselor. Later, when I worked at a lawfirm, I asked one of the lawyers about it. Different specifics, but the upshot is the same. Minors really aren't considered "full" people (unless they get murdered, and even then it's iffy).



MiamiKid said:


> You 100% wrong. Uber's insurance would not cover a claim that involved an unaccompanied minor.
> 
> Don't believe me, call an attorney or insurance adjuster. Could prove you wrong inside of 10 minutes.
> 
> ...


Lyft's definitely wouldn't. I asked a rep at their desk in Pep Boys. She looked it right up in her binder and showed me. Only "legitimate trips" are covered. Unaccompanied minor isn't.

Not for the rider, and, if they have reason to believe the driver SHOULD HAVE known, not for anything else, either. No liability, no C&C.


----------



## 2win (Jun 29, 2019)

You can always say my stomach hurts I have to poop and hit cancel. Just don’t make your stereotypes or discriminations known.


----------



## Halfmybrain (Mar 3, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Until we unionize.


not gonna happen


----------



## x100 (Dec 7, 2015)

ten25 said:


> I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
> 
> Pax with young children and no car seat
> Minors
> ...


You must be able to refuse fold,lift or carry wheelchair due to own back issues. There're vans at the taxi companies and they must handle them imho.


----------

