# Uber drivers denied service to woman with cerebral palsy, new lawsuit claims



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

*Uber drivers denied service to woman with cerebral palsy, new lawsuit claims *

_Rides repeatedly canceled because of her service dog_
By Sean O'Kane@sokane1 Mar 20, 2018, 5:59pm EDT

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17144502/uber-lawsuit-service-dog-discrimination-disability

Uber is being accused of its drivers denying rides to a Texas woman with cerebral palsy on "approximately 25 separate occasions" across 2016 and 2017, according to a new lawsuit filed today. The woman claims that drivers repeatedly canceled rides because she requires the use of a service dog. The complaint, filed in Northern California District Court, accuses Uber of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Texas Human Resources Code, and the plaintiff is seeking damages for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

The plaintiff, D'Edra Steele, details a number of instances in which she was allegedly denied service by Uber drivers in the lawsuit. Many of the claims revolve around Uber drivers refusing her service and canceling rides only after finding out that she uses a service dog. Steele, the lawsuit states, relies on a service dog named Goodee in order to walk and maintain her balance.

Uber drivers used excuses such as allergies, lack of protective seat covering, or simply not wanting to clean up dog hair as reasons for canceling rides, Steele alleges in the complaint. In certain occasions these cancelations left Steele stranded without a ride to or from grocery stores, and in one situation, made her late to her own family's Thanksgiving celebration.

Uber says in its community guidelines that it has a "zero tolerance policy" for discrimination "of any kind" by drivers or riders. Uber's accessibility policy is also clear that drivers aren't allowed to deny rides because of service animals in any circumstances. "Driver-partners have a legal obligation to provide service to riders with service animals," the service animal section reads. "A driver-partner CANNOT lawfully deny service to riders with service animals because of allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals."
. . .​


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

WeirdBob said:


> *Uber drivers denied service to woman with cerebral palsy, new lawsuit claims *
> 
> _Rides repeatedly canceled because of her service dog_
> By Sean O'Kane@sokane1 Mar 20, 2018, 5:59pm EDT
> ...


I blame uber.

Uber PURPOSELY tries to never rematch the Same driver with the Same passenger.

Therefore, Denying this poor woman accomodation of knowlegeable skilled drivers who Know her and are willing to go the " extra mile" for Her.

SHAME ON YOU UBER!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> I blame uber.
> 
> Uber PURPOSELY tries to never rematch the Same driver with the Same passenger.
> 
> ...


Blame the ADA itself. Until they make it clear what constitutes a real service animal you are going to have the idiots that have fake service dogs ruining it for people with legitimate service dogs.


----------



## Fauxknight (Aug 12, 2014)

Blame the multitude of drivers who refuse to drive even real obvious service dogs. Whenever I get a service dog request the pax always has plenty of stories about drivers canceling on them.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fauxknight said:


> Blame the multitude of drivers who refuse to drive even real obvious service dogs. Whenever I get a service dog request the pax always has plenty of stories about drivers canceling on them.


You don't know what a real service dog is because they aren't defined in the ADA.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You don't know what a real service dog is because they aren't defined in the ADA.


Actually, they are defined...as follows:

They are dogs who are trained to provide specific tasks
for a person who requires their assistance because of a disability.
If a person claims to have a service dog, the *prudent* Uber ant will graciously accept the animal and start the ride.

*Imprudent* ants -- having a need to show off, or be assertive, or whatever -- may ask the following questions:

Is this a service animal required because of a disability?
What tasks is this animal trained to perform?
If the pax says yes to the first question and mentions any task for the second -- it's a service animal. End of story.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

JimKE said:


> Actually, they are defined...as follows:
> 
> They are dogs who are trained to provide specific tasks
> for a person who requires their assistance because of a disability.


Trained by who? What specific tasks? What kind of assistance? What disability? Who verifies the dog? How do drivers verify a dog attempting to get in their car is a service dog?


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

It wasn't her cerebal palsy, it was her dog


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Trained by who? What specific tasks? What kind of assistance? What disability? Who verifies the dog? How do drivers verify a dog attempting to get in their car is a service dog?


Google is your friend. It's not like there is a lack of information out there on this *almost 30 year-old law*...lol!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

JimKE said:


> Google is your friend. It's not like there is a lack of information out there on this *almost 30 year-old law*...lol!


its not in the law which is why the law doesnt properly define what a service dog is


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

The ADA law needs to be revised.
1) Needs clarification on service vs support animals. 
2) Service animals need registration so people cannot claim tbeir "fake" animal is genuine.
3) Accommodations need be made so, for instance, if a driver has a severe animal allergy they can be given a waiver from picking up service animals.


----------



## Jayjay9317 (Nov 22, 2017)

WeirdBob said:


> *Uber drivers denied service to woman with cerebral palsy, new lawsuit claims *
> 
> _Rides repeatedly canceled because of her service dog_
> By Sean O'Kane@sokane1 Mar 20, 2018, 5:59pm EDT
> ...


Animal only rideshare. Problem solved.


----------



## KenLV (Jun 23, 2017)

While these drivers are efed (and rightly so), the problem lies with the ADA and the ALLOWED abuse of it.

To get a handicapped parking plate/placard I AND a my doctor or APRN need to fill out this form...

http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/sp27.pdf

How/why the ef is it a violation of the ADA to require people with LEGIT service animals do the same and get a vest/collar/tag?

Also, like other laws, there needs to be a "reasonable accommodation" clause. If I have sever allergies, asthma, etc... (documented by my "my doctor or APRN") I should be exempted. Why should I be forced to put MY LIFE in danger to accommodate you? That's insane!


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Personally...

I think there does need to be a registration like for the handicap placards.

And that registration should come with a card that fits onto collars or harnesses and that easy to see and recognize.

However in the mean time, if you don't have a medical allergy you just NEED to drive anyone who claims to have a service animal without question.

It's the only way to stay out of trouble with the way the laws currently work.

The cab company i drive for has policies in place. Technically a guest with a service animal doesn't have to declare it in advance with us. But most do... BECAUSE the service animal can and WILL count towards the capacity of the cars. Most of the time i get advance notice from dispatch. Honestly I believe that people will say it anyway just to make sure that we don't give them a hassle. (_I have a service dog you better not refuse me service_) kind of deal. I don't get notice that they even have a service dog until i'm already committed to taking them. And you know they aren't going to let me weasel my way out THAT FARE LOL... They aren't stupid.

4 people plus one service dog is going to cause problems in a Toyota camry. That's a tight squeeze without the dog.

Personally i tell guests with them to always give dispatch a heads up and to always count the service dog in the "_number of passengers_"

Then if they trash the taxi, it's not my car!
And if the taxi smells like a wet dog for a while... it's just a taxi... wet dog might be an improvement.


----------



## SurgeWarrior (Jun 18, 2016)

WeirdBob said:


> *Uber drivers denied service to woman with cerebral palsy, new lawsuit claims *
> 
> _Rides repeatedly canceled because of her service dog_
> By Sean O'Kane@sokane1 Mar 20, 2018, 5:59pm EDT
> ...


I would sooner take a dog with CP than a human without it..guess what, if the drivers felt appropriately compensated they wouldnt find reasons to cancel on her or anyone for that matter.

I hope she gets her settlement and Uber finally puts 2 and 2 together..make your drivers feel well compensated and they will go above and beyond for your customers.


----------



## unPat (Jul 20, 2016)

I don’t mind picking up people with service animals but Uber should have an option to order a ride with service animal, that way drivers will not be able to discriminate . As an extra incentive for the drivers Uber should give 100% of the fare to the drivers. 
But Uber don’t care, it’s only couple of millions to settle a lawsuit.


----------



## Eugene73 (Jun 29, 2017)

good for her. i hope she wins and Travis has to personally drive her around 24x7


----------



## 7Miles (Dec 17, 2014)

Uber has UberAssist. There are only like 2-3 drivers online but all you have to do is wait 15 minutes instead of 5.
She expects all of us to accommodate her like she is just any other rider while she is not - she has an animal with her.
Also, what’s up with stoping and talking to her and explain you don’t want to clean after her dog ? Just cancel as soon as you see the dog half a mile away and next request will be soon there for you.


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

You always have the option to get in a line of work that suits you better if picking up people with services animals isn't for you.


----------



## 7Miles (Dec 17, 2014)

Not for that price, thank you. Taxi cabs charge 3 times more. For $3 per mile plus $2 pick up, I will drive exclusively people with dogs if you want me to. 
But for the pennies - nope.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Personally...
> 
> I think there does need to be a registration like for the handicap placards.
> 
> ...


The taxi is probably a $500.00 police auction k-9 car anyway. . .

1st week cab rental pays for car
Next week pays for paint and registration.


----------



## 7Miles (Dec 17, 2014)

I did taxi driving for a few month. Only once I denied service someone. The money is just that good pervmile - you want someone to drive.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

mikes424 said:


> The ADA law needs to be revised.
> 1) Needs clarification on service vs support animals.
> 2) Service animals need registration so people cannot claim tbeir "fake" animal is genuine.
> 3) Accommodations need be made so, for instance, if a driver has a severe animal allergy they can be given a waiver from picking up service animals.


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

Fauxknight said:


> Blame the multitude of drivers who refuse to drive even real obvious service dogs. Whenever I get a service dog request the pax always has plenty of stories about drivers canceling on them.


I had somebody sneak in TWO alleged "emotional support" CATS yesterday. In a zipped up bag that they unzipped once in.

Don't mind cats but that's some BS there..

Made $100 between the fare and the cleaning fee (legitimate but unrelated to the cats) and it got me halfway home so not complaining... but to me this shows EXACTLY why the service dog issue is such an issue.

They should institute an official documentation system with a scannable QR code permanently affixed to legitimate service animal (harness, collar, whatever)... scan comes up with a non-official site and/or doesn't show the pics of owner and service animal? Call cops get em arrested on misdemeanor charges



Grahamcracker said:


> You always have the option to get in a line of work that suits you better if picking up people with services animals isn't for you.


Actually, not true... ADA applies to all businesses and government bodies too.

You LITERALLY cannot work anywhere in America and be guaranteed freedom from abuse-of-ADA bovine guano.


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Adieu said:


> You LITERALLY cannot work anywhere in America and be guaranteed freedom from abuse-of-ADA bovine guano.


True but the issue I am referring to is the fact that when people drive for rideshare, that they are required by law that they MUST accept people who have a service animal into their car and personal space.

If they worked for construction, manufacturing, OTR truck driving or join the military, they wouldn't exposed to these hazardous conditions. 10 years in the Army and I have never been forced to deal with a service animal. In fact if I told my superior that I have a severe allergy to animals, I am sure that he would not make me handle the animal


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> The taxi is probably a $500.00 police auction k-9 car anyway. . .
> 
> 1st week cab rental pays for car
> Next week pays for paint and registration.


They buy them new with zero miles and keep them for 4-5 years and put on 450,000- 500,000 miles. Then they get auctioned for super cheap.

They come straight to the shop factory painted yellow, so it's the original color.

They have been buying new cars since right about October 1st 1971, the day Orlando changed...

They have to keep up a MUCH higher standard of service than many cab companies do. After all we are Disney's %(*%*. But with that comes great rewards...










This is Disney Quality here...

I however am stuck driving ones that are way over the hill , usually in the 280,000-300,000 mile range. Because i am a part timer...


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

WeirdBob said:


> Uber is being accused of its drivers denying rides to a Texas woman with cerebral palsy on "approximately 25 separate occasions" across 2016 and 2017, according to a new lawsuit filed today.


How can this accusation be directed at Uber? Did an Uber dispatcher call to instruct the driver to cancel upon arrival?


----------



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

tohunt4me said:


> I blame uber.
> 
> Uber PURPOSELY tries to never rematch the Same driver with the Same passenger.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure why they do this. Whenever I get a customer who wants me to drive them regularly, I have to change them over to Lyft because Uber won't match the same driver to pax more than three times. Seems silly to me; they must be losing a lot of revenue over this.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I'm not sure why they do this. Whenever I get a customer who wants me to drive them regularly, I have to change them over to Lyft because Uber won't match the same driver to pax more than three times. Seems silly to me; they must be losing a lot of revenue over this.


Uber wants drivers faceless.

A taxi company will send your favorite driver .


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Trained by who? What specific tasks? What kind of assistance? What disability? Who verifies the dog? How do drivers verify a dog attempting to get in their car is a service dog?


You should actually read the ADA guides, they answer all those questions. https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html Since you don't seem to want to read it though, I'll answer for you...
Anyone, as long as it's trained. 
Tasks that mitigate the disability (that's going to be way too long a list to actually itemize out). 
See the answer before this. 
"a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity" 
No one "verifies" (no one is willing to pay for a verification system, and it would be near impossible to implement even if someone was). 
See the answer before this.. "no one" includes drivers. However, they do list 2 questions you can ask (the same 2 that divers always say to ask, because they are the only 2 you can legally ask).



mikes424 said:


> The ADA law needs to be revised.
> 1) Needs clarification on service vs support animals.
> 2) Service animals need registration so people cannot claim tbeir "fake" animal is genuine.
> 3) Accommodations need be made so, for instance, if a driver has a severe animal allergy they can be given a waiver from picking up service animals.


People need to be willing to read before they could revise anything. It's crystal clear on all those instances, it's a 28 year old law, and has been clarified several times, especially because of #3.

1. It's VERY clear on service v. support animals, how much clearer do you want it really? 
"*Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA?*

*A*. No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. However, some State or local governments have laws that allow people to take emotional support animals into public places. You may check with your State and local government agencies to find out about these laws."

2. No one is willing to pay for it (neither feds nor state want to do it). And even if they were, how would you do it? Flash strobe lights at the epileptic to see if the dog alerted before he stroked out? There isn't a practical way to do that. People really need to stop and think this stuff through.

3. If you have a severe enough allergy, then you do get a waver, it's called a "disability" and it means you can't drive. Very, very few people have an allergies to dogs severe enough to constitute a disability, but if you did, you wouldn't be able to drive because even the hair people who have "pets" carry around on them would set you off. I'd have liked to have been a cop, but alas, I have a disability, it sucks but there it is. #3 has been debated for years, and every time, it comes back the same. Having you take an Allegra is better than having them being denied their civil rights. That's simply not going to change.



KenLV said:


> While these drivers are efed (and rightly so), the problem lies with the ADA and the ALLOWED abuse of it.
> 
> To get a handicapped parking plate/placard I AND a my doctor or APRN need to fill out this form...
> 
> ...


Again, no one wants to pay for a certification system, and it would be near impossible to do anyway. If it's not you taking their word for it, it would be the certification person, or a doc. About the only thing you could actually get certified is that a person has a disability (a doc could write that letter without saying what it was), and that the service dog had passed some sort of public access test. The tasks couldn't really be tested. As I said earlier, what are you going to do? Flash a strobe light at an epileptic and see if the dog alerts before they seizure or stroke out? There just isn't a way to test it, you're ultimately going to have to take someone's word that training was done.

As to your question of WHY hasn't that been done, it's simple, again, discrimination. Do we certify that people in their wheel chairs need them? That people wearing glasses need them? That someone with a hearing aid needs it? Of course not, so why would we for service dogs? The cars you refer to aren't medical aid devices, so they can do pretty much whatever they want with that. Service dogs are durable medical equipment, same as a walker, cane, crutches, wheelchair, oxygen tank, etc (they're even tax deductible). If you start certifying service dogs, and not the other stuff, then you can imagine the fall out. Personally, I wish there was a certification, but it's just not practical. Some states have started a voluntary registry, but all they do is ask the 2 questions, if you list 2 (3 in some states) tasks, boom, you're "certified" because that's all they CAN do. If they can lie to you, they can lie to the state too. Ask the two questions, it really is your best bet.

BTW, if you have allergies severe enough, then you would be considered to have a disability too. If you did have a disability (allergy to dogs), then you wouldn't be able to drive (the hair that people walk around with on them from their pets would set you off too). If you were an employee, Uber would have to find another position for you, but as you're not an employee, it simply means they'd deactivate you. Again, sad, but that's the world we live in.

Everyone tries the old allergies line, which is why they locked that down quick (and frankly no one ever takes that seriously, because it's a sham). Just have to suck it up and take an Allegra, I assure you that most people with disabilities would take a pill if it meant they could get their disability to go away for a few hours too.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> As to your question of WHY hasn't that been done, it's simple, again, discrimination. Do we certify that people in their wheel chairs need them? That


It's actually easier to respond to your long winded response by just responding to the above excerpt.

You don't need people in wheel chairs to certify because people aren't allergic to wheel chairs like dogs to the point that people can get sick from that allergic reaction. You don't need people in wheel chairs to certify because wheel chairs don't shit in your car due to not being trained and they won't attack people due to not being trained.

This is all common sense. Nothing in the ADA establishes criteria as a means to be sure that a dog has been trained to do any of the above and to be a pleasant companion to all pax in the car during a trip. Again, common sense.

If I know a dog has been trained then I know that dog isn't going to attack me or anyone else I'm taking in my car of which I am responsible for and that the dog isn't going to take a shit in my back seat, especially with aforementioned pax in my car and that dog is going to sit nicely on the floor like they are supposed to be trained to do. Again, common sense.

Pretty sure I don't have to worry about wheel chairs doing anything like that. Again, common sense.

As it stands now, any Tom, Dick, and Harry can call their dog a service dog just to force me to allow the dog in my car. Again, common sense.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's actually easier to respond to your long winded response by just responding to the above excerpt.
> 
> You don't need people in wheel chairs to certify because people aren't allergic to wheel chairs like dogs to the point that people can get sick from that allergic reaction. You don't need people in wheel chairs to certify because wheel chairs don't shit in your car due to not being trained and they won't attack people due to not being trained.
> 
> ...


More people are more severely allergic to peanuts than dogs, do we certify people to eat peanuts? No, it's on the person allergic to peanuts to take preventative measure (such as a service dog that can smell them and warn). Oxygen can be very dangerous, but we don't certify that people with oxygen tanks need them (we even let old people play with them  ). There are people who are allergic (contrary to your claim) to the metal in wheelchairs, crutches, walkers etc, but we don't certify them (admittedly not that many, but then there aren't that many that are severely allergic to dogs either). Same with latex... I could go on. You can't go around asking people "do you really need that walker because my kid is allergic to the medal it's made of". Again, common sense...

Based on your response, it seems like you're reaching for something with the whole allergies thing when there isn't anything there to grab on to (this has been tried time and time again, and fails every single time). It seem like you really aren't against actual service dogs (based on your "If I know a dog has been trained" part). If your problem is with the fakes, just say that. I hate the fakes too (lock 'em all up). Besides the fact that they are bringing untrained, potentially dangerous dog everywhere, I'm also offended by the fact that they have the unmitigated gall to fake a disability (which is what they are doing by claiming a service dog). It's akin to someone rolling around the mall in a wheel chair asking people to hold the door for them and such when they're able bodied. I doubt you'll find many people defending them. But when you come off as being against legitimate service dogs, you're probably going to have some people disagree with you.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> More people are more severely allergic to peanuts than dogs, do we certify people to eat peanuts? No, it's on the person allergic to peanuts to take preventative measure (such as a service dog that can smell them and warn). Oxygen can be very dangerous, but we don't certify that people with oxygen tanks need them (we even let old people play with them  ). There are people who are allergic (contrary to your claim) to the metal in wheelchairs, crutches, walkers etc, but we don't certify them (admittedly not that many, but then there aren't that many that are severely allergic to dogs either). Same with latex... I could go on. You can't go around asking people "do you really need that walker because my kid is allergic to the medal it's made of". Again, common sense...
> 
> Based on your response, it seems like you're reaching for something with the whole allergies thing when there isn't anything there to grab on to (this has been tried time and time again, and fails every single time). It seem like you really aren't against actual service dogs (based on your "If I know a dog has been trained" part). If your problem is with the fakes, just say that. I hate the fakes too (lock 'em all up). Besides the fact that they are bringing untrained, potentially dangerous dog everywhere, I'm also offended by the fact that they have the unmitigated gall to fake a disability (which is what they are doing by claiming a service dog). It's akin to someone rolling around the mall in a wheel chair asking people to hold the door for them and such when they're able bodied. I doubt you'll find many people defending them. But when you come off as being against legitimate service dogs, you're probably going to have some people disagree with you.


Are you saying peanuts are going to bite you ? Are you saying peanuts are going to cause an allergy by just being near you ?

Again, common sense.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Are you saying peanuts are going to bite you ? Are you saying peanuts are going to cause an allergy by just being near you ?
> 
> Again, common sense.


Peanuts will do worse than bite you, they'll straight up kill you. And yes, they will cause an allergy by just being near you, in fact, they can kill someone several rows away in a pressurized environment like an airplane, just by being breathed. You should probably learn about having disabilities before you comment on them.

Again... Common sense...


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Peanuts will do worse than bite you, they'll straight up kill you. And yes, they will cause an allergy by just being near you, in fact, they can kill someone several rows away in a pressurized environment like an airplane, just by being breathed. You should probably learn about having disabilities before you comment on them.
> 
> Again... Common sense...


A guy I know is from east Texas, and they have a saying out there: _"Never wrestle in the mud with a pig, because you'll get all dirty and the pig will LOVE it!"_

The guy I got that from is actually a pompous asshole, but there is some wisdom in the saying.


----------



## KenLV (Jun 23, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Again, no one wants to pay for a certification system, and it would be near impossible to do anyway.


No one wants to pay for anything. But things get paid for just the same. As to it being "impossible to do", I don't see how. As I said, we've managed to do it for handicapped placards.



Pawtism said:


> If it's not you taking their word for it, *it would be the certification person, or a doc*. About the only thing you could actually get certified is that a person has a disability (a doc could write that letter without saying what it was), and that the service dog had passed some sort of public access test. The tasks couldn't really be tested. As I said earlier, what are you going to do? Flash a strobe light at an epileptic and see if the dog alerts before they seizure or stroke out? There just isn't a way to test it, *you're ultimately going to have to take someone's word that training was done.*


Yes, there's a reason the DMV doesn't take the applicant's word for it for a need for a placard. Without verification, people take advantage. i.e. *they lie*.

The same way the DMV *takes the word of the Doctor* who signed the request, *not the word of the applicant*. There's literally no difference for service animals. So why is it that you think we can do it for placards but that it's "impossible to do" for service animals?



Pawtism said:


> If they can lie to you, they can lie to the state too.


Yes, which, again...is why you have a doctor's certification - no doctor in their right mind is going to risk their licence certifying fake needs/conditions for service animals (or handicapped placards).



Pawtism said:


> As to your question of WHY hasn't that been done


I didn't ask why it hasn't been done, I asked... why is it a violation of the ADA to require verification of a service animal and NOT a violation to require verification to get a placard/plate?:


KenLV said:


> To get a handicapped parking plate/placard I AND a my doctor or APRN need to fill out this form...
> http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/sp27.pdf
> How/why the ef is it a violation of the ADA to require people with LEGIT service animals do the same and get a vest/collar/tag?


But sticking with your claim that it's "discrimination" to require verification, so do you think it's discrimination to require a doctor's certification for handicapped placards/plates now?
If not, why not?



Pawtism said:


> BTW, if you have allergies severe enough, then you would be considered to have a disability too. If you did have a disability (allergy to dogs), then you wouldn't be able to drive (the hair that people walk around with on them from their pets would set you off too).


Wait, what? My wife is insanely allergic to horses and certain breeds of dog. She needs to use her emergency inhaler if she gets anywhere near them. She does NOT have to use it if she around people who were around horses - unless they hug her.



Pawtism said:


> Everyone tries the old allergies line, which is why they locked that down quick (and frankly no one ever takes that seriously, because it's a sham).


The only sham here is the "I need to take my dog everywhere with me, so I'm calling him a "service dog" and you have to let him in your car/on your plane/on your bus/in your restaurant/etc..., or I'll sue!"



Pawtism said:


> Just have to suck it up and take an Allegra


Even if this were true - that taking a drug would eliminate a persons symptoms/risks, why should they have to take a drug so that you can ride in their car?
Fact is, you're literally putting your health above theirs - which is fine, for you - but then (and here's the problem) you're insisting that *they also *put *your health above theirs*. That's insane.

You don't believe people have sever allergies? OK. Let's try this...

What if I have a documented fear of dogs for which I'm under the care of a psychiatrist - let's say I was mauled when I was young.
You want to bring your comfort animal with you because you're afraid to leave the house without him - I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're also under care and really need him.
So, whose "disability" wins out and why?



Pawtism said:


> Service dogs are durable medical equipment, same as [...] oxygen tank, etc (they're even tax deductible).


Actually... https://www.webmd.com/lung/tc/traveling-with-oxygen-topic-overview#1



Pawtism said:


> If you start certifying service dogs, and not the other stuff, then you can imagine the fall out.


Actually, *certification/approval of "durable medical equipment" is the standard*, the problem is that *service dog certification (or lack thereof of) is the exception to the rule*. People with them demand to be treated differently, they don't think *the same standards* should apply to them - which has led to the rampant abuse.

I'm gonna stick with my *requiring certification* for a placard argument as the perfect example. People with service animals claim that they can't do any of the stuff that is required of people to get placards and that it's a violation of their rights to even suggest otherwise. That's hogwash.


----------



## Yulli Yung (Jul 4, 2017)

WeirdBob said:


> *Uber drivers denied service to woman with cerebral palsy, new lawsuit claims *
> 
> _Rides repeatedly canceled because of her service dog_
> By Sean O'Kane@sokane1 Mar 20, 2018, 5:59pm EDT
> ...


WOW, so quick to judge. Most of the comments here appear to believe what is written 100%. We all know what fake news is and how it exaggerates. Rather than make your foolish, liberal, and comments, Let's get all the facts first. I really believe that there is probably another side to the story. How many Uber drivers do you know that would refuse service to a blind lady with a real service dog? Yeah, I don't know many either.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Pretty sure the same doctor saying a patient needs an emotional support animal is saying they may need a handicap spot for lazy people lol


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Peanuts will do worse than bite you, they'll straight up kill you. And yes, they will cause an allergy by just being near you, in fact, they can kill someone several rows away in a pressurized environment like an airplane, just by being breathed. You should probably learn about having disabilities before you comment on them.


Never before have I read anything so stupid. I feel like Bart Mccoy, Ramz, or tomatopaste sent that to you in a pm and said to use it.

Yeah, we get it, you have a pet and are now mad at everyone in the world because of it.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I'm not sure why they do this. Whenever I get a customer who wants me to drive them regularly, I have to change them over to Lyft because Uber won't match the same driver to pax more than three times. Seems silly to me; they must be losing a lot of revenue over this.


Lyft is even worse actually so get a square reader


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Uber's Guber said:


> How can this accusation be directed at Uber? Did an Uber dispatcher call to instruct the driver to cancel upon arrival?


Exactly. Uber's stated policy on this is going to work to get them out of having to pay this lady anyting, and put it squarely on the shoulders of the drivers that refused to transport her and her dog...

... and that's where it belongs. Then all of these people who think they're so slick and so much smarter than people who have service animals will figure out that the law applies to them, as well.


----------



## Bpr2 (Feb 21, 2017)

mikes424 said:


> The ADA law needs to be revised.
> 1) Needs clarification on service vs support animals.
> 2) Service animals need registration so people cannot claim tbeir "fake" animal is genuine.
> 3) Accommodations need be made so, for instance, if a driver has a severe animal allergy they can be given a waiver from picking up service animals.


Supposedly, 2019 will be the year


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Bpr2 said:


> Supposedly, 2019 will be the year


It will be like prescription Marijuana.

Handed out to Everyone.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

WeirdBob said:


> *Uber drivers denied service to woman with cerebral palsy, new lawsuit claims *
> 
> _Rides repeatedly canceled because of her service dog_
> By Sean O'Kane@sokane1 Mar 20, 2018, 5:59pm EDT
> ...


I seems to me there is a simple solution. In the driver profile, there should be an entry for "service animal O.K." Yes or, Sometime or No. If yes, give the trips (force trip like Uber Pool) to that drivers with "Y" if they are in reasonable range, then go to the "S" and then as a last resort then "N". Simple programming change and addition. Uber can do the same for handicapped person, where the vehicle is a van or SUV of some sort.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

Tom Harding said:


> I seems to me there is a simple solution. In the driver profile, there should be an entry for "service animal O.K." Yes or, Sometime or No. If yes, give the trips (force trip like Uber Pool) to that drivers with "Y" if they are in reasonable range, then go to the "S" and then as a last resort then "N". Simple programming change and addition. Uber can do the same for handicapped person, where the vehicle is a van or SUV of some sort.


Did you really just call that a "simple" solution?


----------



## Skorpio (Oct 17, 2017)

If the dog cant put his sest belt..
Its not a trained dog.


----------



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

Personally...

IMHO there needs to be a registration thing like the handicap placards for your service dogs.

I have a handicap placard (for the leg that got blown off) and I still get hell for using it sometimes.


I’ve had the cops called on me 3 or 4 times over the years. Last time was right after my hip surgery. My leg felt like it was on fire and I just didn’t want to cross the entire Walmart parking lot.

But if the people with real service dogs just had to get a doctors sign off and carry a special vest it would be s lot easier to tell the real from the fake.

As a cab driver... I just take them as long as they claim it’s a service dog.

I really don’t care and it’s not my car so... whatever...


It’s just a part of doing this gig. You deal with it or quit yer whining.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

7Miles said:


> Not for that price, thank you. Taxi cabs charge 3 times more. For $3 per mile plus $2 pick up, I will drive exclusively people with dogs if you want me to.
> But for the pennies - nope.


You volunteered to drive for pennies. And if the animal gets your car dirty, unlike a cab, you get paid a cleaning fee. When will you people grow up?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Trained by who? What specific tasks? What kind of assistance? What disability? Who verifies the dog? How do drivers verify a dog attempting to get in their car is a service dog?


They don't. Just take the dog.



KenLV said:


> While these drivers are efed (and rightly so), the problem lies with the ADA and the ALLOWED abuse of it.
> 
> To get a handicapped parking plate/placard I AND a my doctor or APRN need to fill out this form...
> 
> ...


You're not being forced. But you should be exempted. Notify Uber so they can deactivate you now.



Tom Harding said:


> I seems to me there is a simple solution. In the driver profile, there should be an entry for "service animal O.K." Yes or, Sometime or No. If yes, give the trips (force trip like Uber Pool) to that drivers with "Y" if they are in reasonable range, then go to the "S" and then as a last resort then "N". Simple programming change and addition. Uber can do the same for handicapped person, where the vehicle is a van or SUV of some sort.


There is already a simple solution in place. You carry the dog or get deactivated


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wow, I missed a bit here. Instead of trying to reply to everyone separately I'll just try a single reply. As for the peanut allergies thing, ever been on a "nut free" flight? There is a reason for that. People who have peanut allergies can be affected from the nuts I'm eating 6 rows back. The reason is simple physics. The air on the plane is circulated (in a closed system I might add), the dust from my peanuts gets circulated over to them, and they go into anaphylaxis and at best (if they have their epi-pen), we all get an unscheduled stop at the nearest airport.. at worst, they die. Google it before you start making claims that you can't support.

As for certification for people to use wheelchairs as being the norm, maybe in North Korea (is that where you're from?). Here in the USA, we have no such thing. I have a wheelchair I have to use from time to time (I have some minor mobility issues), and I've never been "certified" as having needed it, nor do I have to carry any sort of documentation when I choose to use it (same as my service dog). THAT'S the norm in the USA (can't speak for North Korea, or where ever you're from where you think that's the norm). In fact, the law is MORE strict on service dog usage. For example, I could have my sister (who has no mobility issues at all) roll around the mall in my wheelchair (same with crutches, a walker, O2 tank, etc) and no crime has been committed, but if she puts one of my service dog's vests on her pet dog, and takes it to the mall, she has committed a crime (and could be arrested). So the law is already stricter on service dogs than it is on most other DME (Durable Medical Equipment).

As for a system where there was a legitimate ID for a service dog, I'd actually like that. I, personally (as I can't speak for "all" disabled people), would be in favor of such a system. The problem is, how do you do it? The few states that do have a voluntary system, basically have to rely on the owners word. Really all that can be confirmed is that the handler does, in fact, have a disability, and that they state they have trained the dog. There really isn't a way to do a test (what are you going to do, flash a strobe light at an epileptic and see if the dog alerts before they seize up or stroke out? Yeah, that's not going to create law suits at all....) I'd even go a step further and say they could have an official "public access test" which, while wouldn't prove the dog got it's task training, could at least prove it has behavioral training. But that isn't going to prove I did the task training, only my certification will, which is the same system we have now, self certification (except it's verbal now, with the two questions).

As for comparing it to handicap placards, please... have you seen the rampant abuse in the handicap placard system? They are already trying to redo that system because it's so flawed, and you want to copy it? Ever heard that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it? I tell my doctor about the pain that I have. Either the doc finds what I'm telling them plausible or they don't (much like the second question). If they do, they give me a form to take to the DMV, and I get a placard. If they don't, the fakers will go to another doctor and try again, and keep repeating (and improving their story) until their story is plausible enough that a doctor gives them a form to take to the DMV (assuming they don't short cut it and just find a corrupt doc right off the bat, or buy one from a flea market). Again, do some research people. 

Lastly, as for 2019 being the year. I wouldn't count on it. We very possibly might see the ACAA adjusted in 2019 (because of ESAs on planes), but the ADA isn't likely to be adjusted until at least 2025 (or later), historically speaking, 2030 (about every 20 years). Whoever said they needed clarification on ESAs vs Service Dogs, has clearly never actually read the ADA. It's ultra clear on that (they accomplished that in 2010). Maybe by 2030 they might have come up with a system (but it's likely to follow the states that have voluntary systems, where it's self certified). And the last one (allergies) will never happen. They were very clear about it in 1990, reenforced it in 2010 (adding religion and phobias as well), if anything, 2030 would see the addition of whatever other excuses have been popping up in case law being added to the "this doesn't count" list (along side allergies, phobias, and religion). They're going to be reducing discrimination, not increasing it. There are so few people that have allergies severe enough to be a problem that they would already be considered disabled themselves if they did.


----------



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

Pawtism said:


> Wow, I missed a bit here. Instead of trying to reply to everyone separately I'll just try a single reply. As for the peanut allergies thing, ever been on a "nut free" flight? There is a reason for that. People who have peanut allergies can be affected from the nuts I'm eating 6 rows back. The reason is simple physics. The air on the plane is circulated (in a closed system I might add), the dust from my peanuts gets circulated over to them, and they go into anaphylaxis and at best (if they have their epi-pen), we all get an unscheduled stop at the nearest airport.. at worst, they die. Google it before you start making claims that you can't support.
> 
> As for certification for people to use wheelchairs as being the norm, maybe in North Korea (is that where you're from?). Here in the USA, we have no such thing. I have a wheelchair I have to use from time to time (I have some minor mobility issues), and I've never been "certified" as having needed it, nor do I have to carry any sort of documentation when I choose to use it (same as my service dog). THAT'S the norm in the USA (can't speak for North Korea, or where ever you're from where you think that's the norm). In fact, the law is MORE strict on service dog usage. For example, I could have my sister (who has no mobility issues at all) roll around the mall in my wheelchair (same with crutches, a walker, O2 tank, etc) and no crime has been committed, but if she puts one of my service dog's vests on her pet dog, and takes it to the mall, she has committed a crime (and could be arrested). So the law is already stricter on service dogs than it is on most other DME (Durable Medical Equipment).
> 
> ...


I'd love to see a registry for it, a line on the state IDs that says whether or not you have a service animal or not.

Drivers licences/state IDS would be the IDEAL place to have the registry.

Liscense to drive
Organ Donor
Service animal

State ID
Service animal line


----------



## Marin (May 2, 2018)

Shame. The disgusting situation. Respect disabled people and love animals.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I'd love to see a registry for it, a line on the state IDs that says whether or not you have a service animal or not.
> 
> Drivers licences/state IDS would be the IDEAL place to have the registry.
> 
> ...


My state (and many others) would argue that they can't afford to maintain a program like that (and my state really can't), and that it's a federal law, so the feds should pay for it. I don't disagree in principle (although I can think of some reasons why it would make more sense Federally run instead of state run). On the other side of the coin, the feds would argue, as you, that it's better for the states to run it and that the states should pay for it through their state disability networks. I doubt we'll even get consensus on this forum, let alone between the feds and states on it (anytime money is involved, they aren't going to play nice). Personally, I'd love some sort of official registry too (I hate the fakes probably more than most of you do), it's getting everyone to agree on how to do it that is the real challenge.


----------

