# Uber Settles with The National Federation of the Blind



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

_SAN FRANCISCO -Uber and advocates for the blind have reached a lawsuit settlement in which the ride-hailing company agrees to require that existing and new drivers confirm they understand their legal obligations to transport riders with guide dogs or other service animals, an advocacy group announced Saturday.

The National Federation of the Blind said Saturday that Uber will also remove a driver from the platform after a single complaint if it determines the driver knowingly denied a person with a disability a ride because the person was traveling with a service animal.

The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed in 2014 in federal court that alleges Uber discriminates against passengers with service dogs. The lawsuit said Uber drivers refused to take passengers with dogs and in one case locked the passenger's service dog in the trunk.

Federal law requires taxis and other private transportation services to carry a disabled passenger's service animal.

"Access to reliable and effective transportation is critical to the ability of blind people to live the lives we want," said Mark A. Riccobono, president of the National Federation of the Blind. "Uber and similar services can be a great asset to the blind when they are fully and equally available to us."

Uber will also spend $225,000 to deploy people with the National Federation of the Blind and its California affiliate to evaluate the company's compliance with the settlement, the group said.

Under the agreement, Uber does not admit any liability and it denies that it has violated any laws.

"Our goal at Uber is to make transportation options more accessible to all individuals, including those who are blind, low-vision or have other disabilities," the company said in a statement.

http://www.wcvb.com/news/uber-blind-riders-reach-settlement-over-service-animals/39307408_

Can't say I don't agree with this however I predict there will be some cases of abuse of this however that can be solved by owning the one tool NO driver should be without. A dash camera.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Settles Blind Riders' Discrimination Claims*
*http://m.therecorder.com/#/article/1202756524577/Uber-Settles-Blind-Riders-Discrimination-Claims?kw=Uber Settles Blind Riders' Discrimination Claims&cn=20160502&pt=Afternoon Update&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=The Recorder&_almReferrer=*

SAN FRANCISCO - Uber Technologies Inc. will deactivate drivers who don't accept ride requests from service animal-assisted blind passengers as part of a settlement resolving federal and state discrimination law claims.

The deal, filed late Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, will also require the ride-hailing company to investigate and respond to complaints from passengers with service animals.

The settlement-reached after 11 months of negotiations-puts the company on the hook for up to $85,000 to monitor compliance with the agreement over the next five years.

Uber will also pay as much as $300,000 to the National Federation of the Blind and $45,000 total to the three blind California plaintiffs on whose behalf the original lawsuit was filed. It will pay attorney fees on top of that.

The suit was brought by the California branch of the National Federation of the Blind in September 2014. It claimed that Uber drivers have ignored, shouted at and sped away from blind customers accompanied by guide dogs. The plaintiffs alleged on one occasion an Uber driver locked a passenger's service dog in the trunk of a sedan. In other cases, blind passengers have been forced to pay cancellation fees after they were passed over by Uber drivers.

The company defended itself in part by arguing that it wasn't subject to certain laws applicable to other transportation services such as taxis.

The changes in ride policies under the settlement could set the bar for Lyft Inc., which has been in negotiations with the National Federation of the Blind since late 2015 over the issue of service animal-assisted passenger access.

"This settlement sets important precedent and shows that companies cannot ignore the rights of people with disabilities just because they use a new technology or a novel business model," Larry Paradis, an attorney with Disability Rights Advocates in Berkeley, said in a statement.

"We are pleased we could come to an agreement with Uber and look forward to working with the company to ensure a more accessible system," he added.

Uber, in a blog post, said that if the settlement is approved drivers will receive a pop-up notice in the Uber app informing them of their obligation to take riders with service animals. The company will also send periodic email reminders.

"Our goal at Uber is to make transportation options more accessible to all individuals, including those who are blind, low-vision or have other disabilities. We are committed to continuing to build technological solutions that support everyone's ability to easily move around their communities," Uber said in the post.

In addition to Disability Rights Advocates, the case was litigated by Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld and the TRE Legal Practice in Fremont. Uber was defended by Littler Mendelson.

There are several new rules that Uber drivers will have to abide by under the settlement. They will have to affirmatively agree to accept service animals in their car and acknowledge that there are no exceptions for allergies or religious reasons. They will also not be able to charge a cleaning fee for accepting a service animal.

As part of the settlement, Uber will make it easier for blind and visually impaired riders to lodge complaints about service animal access. The company will have to follow up and tell those riders how it handled the complaint; if a driver is deactivated as a result, the rider gets a $25 ride credit.

On the back end, Uber will have to gather data about those complaints and report it to class counsel periodically over the term of the agreement. The deal lasts 3 1/2 years initially, but can be extended to five years if the parties agree or if a yet-to-be appointed third-party monitor determines that Uber is failing to comply with the terms.

The proposed settlement would certify a national class of blind or visually disabled individuals who have used, attempted to use or been deterred from using Uber and release Uber from their legal claims. A fairness hearing has been set for June 8 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins.

Contact the reporter at [email protected].


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Sounds more like uber is paying them off.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> There are several new rules that Uber drivers will have to abide by under the settlement. They will have to affirmatively agree to accept service animals in their car and acknowledge that there are no exceptions for allergies or religious reasons. They will also not be able to charge a cleaning fee for accepting a service animal.
> 
> As part of the settlement, Uber will make it easier for blind and visually impaired riders to lodge complaints about service animal access. The company will have to follow up and tell those riders how it handled the complaint; if a driver is deactivated as a result, the rider gets a $25 ride credit.


And that right there is a VERY interesting bit of info to have. Its not a matter of waiting there to make sure they get another driver its take it or be deactivated. I personally don't have a problem with taking service animals but there are a LOT of drivers here that seem to have allergies to them. Guess they have no choice in the matter now.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

D Town said:


> And that right there is a VERY interesting bit of info to have. Its not a matter of waiting there to make sure they get another driver its take it or be deactivated. I personally don't have a problem with taking service animals but there are a LOT of drivers here that seem to have allergies to them. Guess they have no choice in the matter now.


"Seem" is the operative word here. A relative handful of people out there have allergies to dogs, there are just a lot of people that don't want a mutt in their personal vehicles, and I can't blame them for that.

Allergies, or concerns about the allergies of subsequent passengers, I think is usually just an excuse.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

What happens if the dog craps in your car ?


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

I_Like_Spam said:


> "Seem" is the operative word here. A relative handful of people out there have allergies to dogs, there are just a lot of people that don't want a mutt in their personal vehicles, and I can't blame them for that.
> 
> Allergies, or concerns about the allergies of subsequent passengers, I think is usually just an excuse.


If you don't want to take a chance of a service animal in your car don't offer up your car for hire. I don't allow my own dog in my car unless its a vet visit yet when I was driving I'd certainly take a service animal for a disabled pax. That's not only the right thing to do its the law.



uberdriverfornow said:


> What happens if the dog craps in your car ?


...you get the cleaning fee...why would that be different...?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> And that right there is a VERY interesting bit of info to have. Its not a matter of waiting there to make sure they get another driver its take it or be deactivated. I personally don't have a problem with taking service animals but there are a LOT of drivers here that seem to have allergies to them. Guess they have no choice in the matter now.


I doubt that many drivers actually have allergies, if they did, why would they be drivers? Any dog owner could come into your car and get dander all over without bringing their dog in the car. The driver's allergies would also have to be so severe they would prevent the driver from operating the car.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> I doubt that many drivers actually have allergies, if they did, why would they be drivers? Any dog owner could come into your car and get dander all over without bringing their dog in the car. The driver's allergies would also have to be so severe they would prevent the driver from operating the car.


Oh, I'm certain a majority are bullcrap claims...and as I type this I realize the odd are good someone will be here shortly to rant about how for THEM its a real thing and have a story about how they almost died because there was a dog within 3 miles of them or some such thing.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> Oh, I'm certain a majority are bullcrap claims...and as I type this I realize the odd are good someone will be here shortly to rant about how for THEM its a real thing and have a story about how they almost died because there was a dog within 3 miles of them or some such thing.


As long as they have the medical citation to prove it......


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> As long as they have the medical citation to prove it......


If they do then that's a different story however from what I've read it doesn't permit them to refuse service to a person with a service animal.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> If they do then that's a different story however from what I've read it doesn't permit them to refuse service to a person with a service animal.


I was being sarcastic. Sorry, I know that doesn't come through well in print. So few drivers can prove that their allergy is so severe that they couldn't drive that I doubt any driver would actually have documentation. I'm sure they'll claim they have allergies and then be deactivated when Uber investigates.


----------



## claimbuster (Mar 25, 2016)

But I understand a rider does NOT have to demonstrate its truly a service dog. If so, then any old mutt can be loaded aboard.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

Service animals are well trained. Your average Uber passenger is much more likely to crap in your car than a seeing eye dog is.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

claimbuster said:


> But I understand a rider does NOT have to demonstrate its truly a service dog. If so, then any old mutt can be loaded aboard.


As a driver you can't tell them you don't think it's a service dog.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> I was being sarcastic. Sorry, I know that doesn't come through well in print. So few drivers can prove that their allergy is so severe that they couldn't drive that I doubt any driver would actually have documentation. I'm sure they'll claim they have allergies and then be deactivated when Uber investigates.


The curse of text only communication...


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

D Town said:


> ...you get the cleaning fee...why would that be different...?





chi1cabby said:


> They will also not be able to charge a cleaning fee for accepting a service animal.


----------



## CatchyMusicLover (Sep 18, 2015)

Demon said:


> As a driver you can't tell them you don't think it's a service dog.


BUT the interesting thing is you can ask if it's a companion dog, and if they don't correct you, you can refuse on those grounds (or so I've heard on this forum anyway)


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

CatchyMusicLover said:


> BUT the interesting thing is you can ask if it's a companion dog, and if they don't correct you, you can refuse on those grounds (or so I've heard on this forum anyway)


Are you willing to risk your job over something you heard on this forum?


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

That says for ACCEPTING a service animal. Some drivers try and charge a fee for just having a dog in the car.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Fireguy50 said:


> wha? how did my quote get here?


Some funky error and carelessness on my part. Sorry.


----------

