# Uber/Lyft forcing ADA dogs, but I'm allergic



## Joesmith2012 (Oct 7, 2017)

So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


----------



## #professoruber (Feb 19, 2018)

Sorry, but if you are that allergic, time to quit driving. 

To answer your question, Uber is not going to reimburse you for the epi pen or the ER bills or your paid time off. We are not employees. We are independent contractors. Based on this policy, you need to decide if this line of work and it's risks are worth it.

By the way, in almost 7K rides, I have had maybe a handful of animals. I had one service animal. If I was severely allergic and happened to get a dog, I think I could calmly discuss the issue with the rider and they would understand. I believe most drivers are deactivated based on how they handle the situation and are outright rude, short, or confrontational.

I think most people with service dogs would ultimately understand if you let them know that you are severely allergic to dogs and that you will cancel without charging a fee and be apologetic to their situation of trying to get a ride, they will order another ride and move on.

Or you can roll up, see the dog, and drive right on by and then cancel. If you cancel before the 5 minutes, the ride is automatically rolled over to the next driver. From experience, Uber CSR's don't have access to the complete log and it would take additional research to find that you were the initial driver that cancelled. At that point, your stance can be, it was due to personal emergency and you had to cancel the ride.


----------



## 911 Guy (Feb 8, 2018)

You do realize that it is the Law rather than just Uber / Lyft Policy, correct?


----------



## Joesmith2012 (Oct 7, 2017)

911 Guy said:


> You do realize that it is the Law rather than just Uber / Lyft Policy, correct?


You do realize people can die right, allergies are no joke, especially small children


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> You do realize people can die right, allergies are no joke, especially small children


Then for god sake find a job that prohibits service dogs entry.


----------



## 911 Guy (Feb 8, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> You do realize people can die right, allergies are no joke, especially small children


I understand that very well as an Ex-FF/EMT. How could this involve allergic small children in an U / L scenario? If you are concerned, explain yourself professionally to the rider and cancel w/o charging. Chances are your rider isn't going to want you at risk either since their lives are in your hands.


----------



## Joesmith2012 (Oct 7, 2017)

BigRedDriver said:


> Then for god sake find a job that prohibits service dogs entry.


No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

Both Uber and Lyft have made it clear that allergies are not an exception. Nobody cares about drivers. We're replaceable.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


Because you are working, motivated by money. The customer, who you agreed to pick up, is not.

Having said that, I don't agree with the law, but it is what it is.


----------



## xerexabante (Dec 13, 2016)

Spray your car with dog deterrent they use for 
Potty training. I bet you that dog wouldn’t go in your car or use a anti barking device and turn it in when you see the dog. 

Should solve your problem. Been doing that for years. You should see the dog owners reaction when the k9 won’t go in. I say sorry your dog doesn’t want to ride.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


I've only had one rider that needed a service dog for seizures, pax was cool and told me ahead of time. Just tell the rider you risk going into shock at the wheel in a confined place with service animal and you can not complete trip. They probably value their life and get another Uber. If you have any problems with Uber mention FMLA and lawsuit in the same sentence and they will change their tone real quick. Uber is liable on both fronts and kind of stuck between a rock and hard place.


----------



## Iamfoodgod (Mar 9, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> You do realize people can die right, allergies are no joke, especially small children


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...fter-dog-licks-lead-to-infection-family-says/


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


It's a real concern and I wish I had a good answer. What happens if you do the ride and have an accident because you went into anaphylactic shock, who is going to pay the damages.

Stop driving means you are being discriminated against. I agree the laws and policies suck. What really burns is you can have a medical certificate showing the allergy could be deadly and a pax with a dog does not have to have anything other than their word that the dog is a service animal, and trust me visit South Florida and you will see the abuse of the service dog policy by many dog owners.


----------



## Joesmith2012 (Oct 7, 2017)

There needs to be medical exemptions for those with allergies I would be more than happy to provide a doctors note stating my medical conditions. But my worry is also for those who aren't the drivers. What if a person is driving and takes a ADA dog, then picks up their child from day care. Oh look my kid just stopped breathing in my car I wonder why


----------



## Pax Collector (Feb 18, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


I think you should take your case to the Supreme Court.

As far as driving, I firmly believe that you need to cease and desist as you'll be endangering your life with a condition like that.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

No different than peanut allergies. I had a lady freak out because I had a can of peanuts in my car to snack on during the night. She saw them yelled at me for having them and cancelled the ride saying she was highly allergic to them. Was I wrong to have them in my car? I say no, but I understand her concerns. Not the same as being forced to take someone with a dog, but still a medical concern.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Pax Collector said:


> I think you should take your case to the Supreme Court.
> 
> As far as driving, I firmly believe that you need to cease and desist as you'll be endangering your life with a condition like that.


As well as the passengers life.

Look, it's not just rideshare. Nearly everywhere you work will not prohibit ADA dogs.


----------



## Pax Collector (Feb 18, 2018)

BigRedDriver said:


> As well as the passengers life.
> 
> Look, it's not just rideshare. Nearly everywhere you work will not prohibit ADA dogs.


Exactly.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

FLKeys said:


> No different than peanut allergies. I had a lady freak out because I had a can of peanuts in my car to snack on during the night. She saw them yelled at me for having them and cancelled the ride saying she was highly allergic to them. Was I wrong to have them in my car? I say no, but I understand her concerns. Not the same as being forced to take someone with a dog, but still a medical concern.


Agreed. It's a problem that's hard to come to grips with.

Conflicting rights are always problematic


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> As well as the passengers life.
> 
> Look, it's not just rideshare. Nearly everywhere you work will not prohibit ADA dogs.


Well that's the problem we don't work for Uber.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Well that's the problem we don't work for Uber.


True, but we are not exempt from ADA, even if we are disabled


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> True, but we are not exempt from ADA, even if we are disabled


Uber could tell all partners with allergies for dogs to submit paperwork for it when we first sign up and never match them with dog pax.


----------



## Terri Lee (Jun 23, 2016)

Joesmith2012 said:


> You do realize people can die right, allergies are no joke, especially small children


Get another job.

You remind me of a non-swimmer complaining you can't be a lifeguard.


----------



## Joesmith2012 (Oct 7, 2017)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Uber could tell all partners with allergies for dogs to submit paperwork for it when we first sign up and never match them with dog pax.


I agree with this wholeheartedly, I'm not trying to be difficult or unreasonable, I just want my medical issues respected as well as my family while I work. I don't think it's too much to ask. BTW Congress passed the medical leave act, which gives employees slash workers rights when it come to the work place. So don't tell me I don't have a legal standing.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> True, but we are not exempt from ADA, even if we are disabled


Also Uber feels less liable saying they stop partnership with driver vs they fired a driver for a medical disorder. Either way a driver with a lawyer will get a check if they take Uber to court over it.


Joesmith2012 said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly, I'm not trying to be difficult or unreasonable, I just want my medical issues respected as well as my family while I work. I don't think it's too much to ask. BTW Congress passed the medical leave act, which gives employees slash workers rights when it come to the work place. So don't tell me I don't have a legal standing.


 You absolutely have legal standing. If Uber deactivate you for refusing a pax because you are allergic to dogs, they violate your rights to respect pax rights. Any driver that take them to court for deactivation is gonna get a check. I said what I said to prove Uber has the knowledge, resources, and ability to not violate anyone's rights but chose to do otherwise.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Also Uber feels less liable saying they stop partnership with driver vs they fired a driver for a medical disorder. Either way a driver with a lawyer will get a check if they take Uber to court over it.
> You absolutely have legal standing. If Uber deactivate you for refusing a pax because you are allergic to dogs, they violate your rights to respect pax rights. Any driver that take them to court for deactivation is gonna get a check. I said what I said to prove Uber has the knowledge, resources, and ability to not violate anyone's rights but chose to do otherwise.


I disagree. When you start a business you agree to obey laws that govern business.

Again, I think it's a horrible choice, but it is what it is.

And your lawyer would be fighting the Justice department. It is they who advocate for ADA complaints.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> I disagree. When you start a business you agree to obey laws that govern business.
> 
> Again, I think it's a horrible choice, but it is what it is.
> 
> And your lawyer would be fighting the Justice department. It is they who advocate for ADA complaints.


No the justice department doesn't deactivate you. Uber deactivate you to avoid fines from justice department or lawsuit from pax. While doing so they leave themselves open to being sued by driver. It's the lesser(cheaper) of two evils in their book.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> No the justice department doesn't deactivate you. Uber deactivate you to avoid fines from justice department or lawsuit from pax. While doing so they leave themselves open to being sued by driver. It's the lesser(cheaper) of two evils in their book.


I disagree again. You, me nor a disabled business owner can discriminate based on a disability.

Could Uber/Lyft be sued?

On what basis?

For making a rule that mirrors existing law?

I'm not thinking it would go very far.

Would I support a change in law that made some exceptions to the current ADA, especially in this case?

Absolutely!

Will it happen. Maybe, but I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

Joesmith2012 said:


> You do realize people can die right, allergies are no joke, especially small children


One would wonder then why you agreed to it when you signed up, because you had to agree to it to sign up. If it's that life-threatening, perhaps you should be doing something else. Like it or not, it is the law, and there is no way around it.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Uber could tell all partners with allergies for dogs to submit paperwork for it when we first sign up and never match them with dog pax.


That would violate the law.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> I disagree again. You, me nor a disabled business owner can discriminate based on a disability.
> 
> Could Uber/Lyft be sued?
> 
> ...


Uber drivers are not business owners, we are independent contractors there is a legal, both civil and financial, difference.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

You can parse words until the cows come home. We run our own businesses, and we have to obey the laws.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

CTK said:


> One would wonder then why you agreed to it when you signed up, because you had to agree to it to sign up. If it's that life-threatening, perhaps you should be doing something else. Like it or not, it is the law, and there is no way around it.
> 
> That would violate the law.


No it isn't how do you think grocery stores and other public places handle this. They have an associate that isn't allergic to accommodate that customer.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

So, let her hire an associate?

That’s your answer?

It’s her business and she agreed to the terms.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> You can parse words until the cows come home. We run our own businesses, and we have to obey the laws.


We don't what run our own business. All independent contractors are not business owners.



BigRedDriver said:


> So, let her hire an associate?
> 
> That's your answer?
> 
> It's her business and she agreed to the terms.


No my answer is for Uber to send a driver that isn't allergic to dogs the first time around.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


Actually, I don't buy your severity for a second. If your symptoms were that bad, dog dander on a rider's clothes would be just as much of a problem. You seem unconcerned when it comes to that factor so, there's some degree of hyperbole in your story about needing an EpiPen.

Service dogs are the best trained and best kept pets around. They come with carers to groom them and assist disabled people in keeping them healthy, so they should be considerably less problematic for an allergy sufferer.

You've likely grown up associating dogs (because of your potential allergies) negatively and you show a profound lack of ability or desire to consider this rationally, so I'm, sadly, dispassionate towards your situation. I'm afraid you drew the short straw in life and will just have to deal.

If your attitude improves and you want information on how you can minimize your exposure, I'd suggest a doctor rather than complaining on some unofficial Uber forum. Just sayin.


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


I am allergic to flour. So I don't work in a bakery.

See how that works.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


When you accepted terms to drive you agreed do exactly that which is against your own interest.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

DexNex said:


> I am allergic to flour. So I don't work in a bakery.
> 
> See how that works.


She drives Uber, she didn't sign up to be a dog groomer...


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> She drives Uber, she didn't sign up to be a dog groomer...


providing transportation to the public also legally entails providing transportation to service animals.

don't like it, don't work a gig wherein you provide transportation to the public.

it's really not that hard.


----------



## disp350 (Jul 16, 2016)

Read through the dozens of posts regarding issues with the ADA act. Point out how many times the driver was either exonerated or reinstated. Can't find any? I'm not making any opinion as to what I think about the ADA, but there is one inherent fact. As an Uber or Lyft driver, if you challenge it with a passenger, you lose 100% of the time. If you can't deal with having to follow it or it will cause you issues, it's time to reconsider being a driver. That or petition your local Congress member to have it modified.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

disp350 said:


> Read through the dozens of posts regarding issues with the ADA act. Point out how many times the driver was either exonerated or reinstated. Can't find any? I'm not making any opinion as to what I think about the ADA, but there is one inherent fact. As an Uber or Lyft driver, if you challenge it with a passenger, you lose 100% of the time. If you can't deal with having to follow it or it will cause you issues, it's time to reconsider being a driver. That or petition your local Congress member to have it modified.


Being reinstated or exonerated has nothing to do with suing Uber for ignoring your own ADA rights. If nothing else Uber will settle out of court to avoid this blowing up in their face.

If I was getting a haircut, my service animal needs to sit on my lap , and my barber is allergic to dogs. Do the barber get booted from the shop? Or do another barber in the shop take me with an apology from original barber. Uber drivers aren't the first service industry people to deal with ADA accommodations but we sure are making it rocket science.


----------



## ECOMCON (Dec 30, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


*Uber's following Government regulations.
Sue the government
good luck with that*



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Uber could tell all partners with allergies for dogs to submit paperwork for it when we first sign up and never match them with dog pax.


you're forgetting crucial factors.
Uber HQ considers drivers:

Disposable
non-employees
easily replaceable 
Passengers are King who Uber will Serve & Protect.

Back to Ur issue:

You're going to submit what?
To get consideration from whom?
And sign up for What?


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Being reinstated or exonerated has nothing to do with suing Uber for ignoring your own ADA rights. If nothing else Uber will settle out of court to avoid this blowing up in their face.
> 
> If I was getting a haircut, my service animal needs to sit on my lap , and my barber is allergic to dogs. Do the barber get booted from the shop? Or do another barber in the shop take me with an apology from original barber. Uber drivers aren't the first service industry people to deal with ADA accommodations but we sure are making it rocket science.


the ADA does not provide protection during haircuts. The ADA does provide protection when dealing with transportation.

Please stay focused.


----------



## ECOMCON (Dec 30, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly, I'm not trying to be difficult or unreasonable, I just want my medical issues respected as well as my family while I work. I don't think it's too much to ask. BTW Congress passed the medical leave act, which gives employees slash workers rights when it come to the work place. So don't tell me I don't have a legal standing.


_"So don't tell me I don't have a legal standing"
_
U don't have a legal standing

nor an Employer. Ur a freelancer with less rights than a canine

now what?


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

ECOMCON said:


> *Uber's following Government regulations.
> Sue the government
> good luck with that*





DexNex said:


> the ADA does not provide protection during haircuts. The ADA does provide protection when dealing with transportation.
> 
> Please stay focused.


What makes you think barbershops are exempt from ADA laws?


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> What makes you think barbershops are exempt from ADA laws?


That is not what I said. Again, focus.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Person has hiv every barber refuse to give person a haircut is a clear violation of ADA laws over haircut and barbershop. This is dead center on topic.


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Person has hiv every barber refuse to give person a haircut is a clear violation of ADA laws over haircut and barbershop. This is dead center on topic.


Nope. We are talking about transportation here. It is a special class within the ADA. If you want to talk about hair cuts, I suggest you find a barber-centric board.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

DexNex said:


> Nope. We are talking about transportation here. It is a special class within the ADA. If you want to talk about hair cuts, I suggest you find a barber-centric board.


I chose barber because of how similar their employment status is to an Uber driver. These are two deferent fields but both have to meet ADA compliance. You just don't have a real rebuttal.


----------



## ECOMCON (Dec 30, 2018)

DexNex said:


> Nope. We are talking about transportation here. It is a special class within the ADA. If you want to talk about hair cuts, I suggest you find a barber-centric board.


agreed.

entry level low skill Ground transportation has little chance to exchange HIV body fluids between driver and pax.
Conversely: barbers and manicurist could nick u.

cool image. Bogie getting a trim.


----------



## disp350 (Jul 16, 2016)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Being reinstated or exonerated has nothing to do with suing Uber for ignoring your own ADA rights. If nothing else Uber will settle out of court to avoid this blowing up in their face.
> 
> If I was getting a haircut, my service animal needs to sit on my lap , and my barber is allergic to dogs. Do the barber get booted from the shop? Or do another barber in the shop take me with an apology from original barber. Uber drivers aren't the first service industry people to deal with ADA accommodations but we sure are making it rocket science.


Tell you what - u take on Uber over this issue and let us all know how you make out and what you're new career is.


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> You just don't have a real rebuttal.


 For the third time, transportation is a special class within the ADA. You can't compare transportation to haircuts. Transportation providers are held to a different, higher standard.

Your constant comparisons to haircuts is flawed.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

ECOMCON said:


> agreed.
> 
> entry level low skill Ground transportation has little chance to exchange HIV body fluids between driver and pax.
> Conversely: barbers and manicurist could nick u.
> ...


That's not the point...


disp350 said:


> Tell you what - u take on Uber over this issue and let us all know how you make out and what you're new career is.


Lol I'm not allergic to dogs and have no problem with it. I just can't stand when people just bend over and spread them for a company because big brother told you so.


----------



## disp350 (Jul 16, 2016)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> That's not the point...
> Lol I'm not allergic to dogs and have no problem with it. I just can't stand when people just bend over and spread them for a company because big brother told you so.


Did you not see my original post? Just bend over??? Find me a discussion where a driver had an issue with ADA and a pax (almost always over a service animal) where Uber agreed with the driver. Drivers have tried to take on Uber over this and lost. Uber won't even look at the dash cam video sent in. If a pax claims your won't take what they state is a service animal, your deactivated.


----------



## BigBadJohn (Aug 31, 2018)

Can you have a service/comfort pet as a driver? If so, get a ferocious breed, like a Pit Bull bred for fighting and have him/her greet your passengers. Should put an end to this nonsense.......


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

disp350 said:


> Did you not see my original post? Just bend over??? Find me a discussion where a driver had an issue with ADA and a pax (almost always over a service animal) where Uber agreed with the driver. Drivers have tried to take on Uber over this and lost. Uber won't even look at the dash cam video sent in. If a pax claims your won't take what they state is a service animal, your deactivated.


I understand let them deactivate you. You sue them, y'all probably settle, you move on.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> I understand let them deactivate you. You sue them, y'all probably settle, you move on.





disp350 said:


> Did you not see my original post? Just bend over??? Find me a discussion where a driver had an issue with ADA and a pax (almost always over a service animal) where Uber agreed with the driver. Drivers have tried to take on Uber over this and lost. Uber won't even look at the dash cam video sent in. If a pax claims your won't take what they state is a service animal, your deactivated.


Oh yea I seen your post. You are more worried about Uber deactivation, than Justice Department, or legal litigation with pax. That's the very definition of bending over and spreading them for a corporation.


----------



## disp350 (Jul 16, 2016)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> I understand let them deactivate you. You sue them, y'all probably settle, you move on.
> 
> Oh yea I seen your post. You are more worried about Uber deactivation, than Justice Department, or legal litigation with pax. That's the very definition of bending over and spreading them for a corporation.


I'm not worried about shit. Like I said, you take them on for all of us over this, show us how its done. Haven't seen a post from anyone yet who has done this and won. Time to put up or shut up.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

Joesmith2012 said:


> There needs to be medical exemptions for those with allergies I would be more than happy to provide a doctors note stating my medical conditions. But my worry is also for those who aren't the drivers. What if a person is driving and takes a ADA dog, then picks up their child from day care. Oh look my kid just stopped breathing in my car I wonder why


Your point valid, passion admirable. 
Ridesharing complete disregard for drivers is well-documented.
Good luck!


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

disp350 said:


> I'm not worried about shit. Like I said, you take them on for all of us over this, show us how its done. Haven't seen a post from anyone yet who has done this and won. Time to put up or shut up.


I'm not allergic to dogs. One would need to be allergic to dogs and be deactivated for it to stand a chance. You're not worried about deactivation but you're treating Uber's deactivation policy as end of the line. Look everyone if Uber deactivate you or an employer fires you it doesn't mean they are in the right and can not be taken to court.


----------



## ECOMCON (Dec 30, 2018)

disp350 said:


> Tell you what - u take on Uber over this issue and let us all know how you make out and what you're new career is.


BRUCE Lee, Chuck Norris & TheDevilisaParttimer








Take on Uber HQ
This ain't 
Gonna be
Pretty


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

xerexabante said:


> Spray your car with dog deterrent they use for
> Potty training. I bet you that dog wouldn't go in your car or use a anti barking device and turn it in when you see the dog.
> 
> Should solve your problem. Been doing that for years. You should see the dog owners reaction when the k9 won't go in. I say sorry your dog doesn't want to ride.


Never considered that. What do you do with lapdogs people carry into your car? Seems like that would be a god awful whiny ride.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Are you a small child?

I don't see the relevance.

In any case, I wouldn't take a job lifting heavy items because I fractured my back in 2008 and it's not something I can do.

Sounds like you can't be a rideshare driver.



Joesmith2012 said:


> There needs to be medical exemptions for those with allergies I would be more than happy to provide a doctors note stating my medical conditions. But my worry is also for those who aren't the drivers. What if a person is driving and takes a ADA dog, then picks up their child from day care. Oh look my kid just stopped breathing in my car I wonder why


If someone is THAT allergic they'd have a problem with me (many foster cats and dogs in my household) even getting in their car. I'm likely covered in pet dander. So they can't drive ANYWAY.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> No it isn't how do you think grocery stores and other public places handle this. They have an associate that isn't allergic to accommodate that customer.


Really? How does that work - dog walking around the grocery store, the mall, the hotel - one associate is accomodating it? And everyone else who works there is where, exactly? Hiding in the closet?

(Where do you people come up with this stuff - did this make sense even to you?)

The point is that every Uber and Lyft driver agreed to take service animals as a condition of getting approved to drive. If it is such a problem, why agree to it in the first place?


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


how does a dead person file a claim? 
did the corpse out out of arbitration ?


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

ECOMCON said:


> BRUCE Lee, Chuck Norris & TheDevilisaParttimer
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for giving me a good laugh at the beginning of the day.



CTK said:


> Really? How does that work - dog walking around the grocery store, the mall, the hotel - one associate is accomodating it? And everyone else who works there is where, exactly? Hiding in the closet?
> 
> (Where do you people come up with this stuff - did this make sense even to you?)
> 
> The point is that every Uber and Lyft driver agreed to take service animals as a condition of getting approved to drive. If it is such a problem, why agree to it in the first place?


Actually if you're that allergic the establishment has to accommodate. Go on break, go home, etc.

The last bit of your post is where we sign an agreement to not deny dogs is where anyone trying to sue will stumble. Can't believe I forgot about that. Well I guess if your allergic, your screwed.


----------



## Michael1230nj (Jun 23, 2017)

Doomed I tell you Doomed.


----------



## Jefferson DDBY (Jul 27, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly, I'm not trying to be difficult or unreasonable, I just want my medical issues respected as well as my family while I work. I don't think it's too much to ask. BTW Congress passed the medical leave act, which gives employees slash workers rights when it come to the work place. So don't tell me I don't have a legal standing.


Please cite the exact passage in the medical leave act that you are referring to that gives you the rights you are claiming.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> We don't what run our own business. All independent contractors are not business owners.
> 
> No my answer is for Uber to send a driver that isn't allergic to dogs the first time around.


That would violate ADA laws.


----------



## ECOMCON (Dec 30, 2018)

Boca Ratman said:


> how does a dead person file a claim?
> did the corpse out out of arbitration ?


The conservator of the deceased's estate can file.

My "estate" consists of a Jar with loose change on the nightstand.
Not sure it needs a conservator


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

Rushmanyyz said:


> Actually, I don't buy your severity for a second. If your symptoms were that bad, dog dander on a rider's clothes would be just as much of a problem. You seem unconcerned when it comes to that factor so, there's some degree of hyperbole in your story about needing an EpiPen.
> 
> Service dogs are the best trained and best kept pets around. They come with carers to groom them and assist disabled people in keeping them healthy, so they should be considerably less problematic for an allergy sufferer.
> 
> ...


Agree. Here's Uber's position....
"It's not about you".


----------



## ECOMCON (Dec 30, 2018)

Michael1230nj said:


> Doomed I tell you Doomed.


We're goin' 2 Hell in a hand basket


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

IR12 said:


> Agree. Here's Uber's position....
> "It's not about you".


(Not directed at IR12)
I seriously don't care about Uber's position because, for me, it's an ethical issue and secondarily a legal issue.

In most western nations, access to service animals is a legal right and it is protected beyond whiney people who can't even discuss the mater in terms that show they have ever seen an immunologist to confirm this "severe allergy". If you have a medical condition where compliance with the law puts your health at risk, then the sensible option is to find another job.

Dog allergies are not disabilities and are almost always treated by medication. Seeking medical help, knowing that service animals are protected by law and bolstered by Uber's policy, would be the most rational choice.

If you are medicated and still allergic enough that the one service dog per year that the average driver will ever see, puts you into anaphylaxis, then you are rolling the dice more than you think. A lot of your riders have dogs. Their dander is all over them. You're screwed anyway.

Go to the damn doctor and stop the incessant whining on this thread. The lot of you are disingenuous as all hell, complaining about things that far smarter people than yourselves already arbitrated, debated, and passed laws about.

You're just going to have to deal with it.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

ECOMCON said:


> The conservator of the deceased's estate can file.
> 
> My "estate" consists of a Jar with loose change on the nightstand.
> Not sure it needs a conservator


and a used camary with 260,000 miles not to mention the dog hair


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

*Q: *


Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs


*A:* Yes.

*Q: *


Joesmith2012 said:


> is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car,


*A:* No.



Joesmith2012 said:


> I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car,


That does not matter. As the ADA reads, the bottom line is that their disability trumps yours. That is neither fair nor right, but the law rarely takes things such as "fair" or "right" into consideration. Further, "common sense" and "the law" are far too often mutually destructive entities. You do not have to like it, Y-E-T, but you still have to do it. If Harris or Warren win in 2020, we might have to re-visit the last item.



#professoruber said:


> Uber is not going to reimburse you for the epi pen or the ER bills or your paid time off.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^See?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



#professoruber said:


> If I was severely allergic and happened to get a dog, I think I could calmly discuss the issue with the rider and they would understand. I think most people with service dogs would ultimately understand if you let them know that you are severely allergic to dogs and that you will cancel without charging a fee and be apologetic to their situation of trying to get a ride, they will order another ride and move on


My experience dictates that it would be somewhat less than prudent to bet on that.



#professoruber said:


> Or you can roll up, see the dog, and drive right on by and then cancel. your stance can be, it was due to personal emergency and you had to cancel the ride.


If they perceive your presence and your driving away and they report you for "discriminating", which is that for which they will report you if they are going to complain, both Uber and Lyft will assume that the complaint has basis and de-activate you. Several drivers have complained about de-activation for this reason, including those who cancelled before they even went to the address. Most of the last group were careful to state that their cancellation rate was below, at, or about ten per-cent, which is well within tolerances for either company.

As for "personal emergencies", unless you can document it, not the TNCs, not the regulators, not the adjudicators will accept that. They assume that anyone who claims a sudden "personal emergency" is lying. Even if you can document this, half the time they will dismiss the documentation. This is why I always state that you are "guilty EVEN WHEN proved innocent".



#professoruber said:


> I believe most drivers are deactivated based on how they handle the situation and are outright rude, short, or confrontational.


While I would question the use of "most", my experience does dictate that more than a few of those who are the subject of these complaints neither presented nor comported themselves in a courteous, professional and businesslike manner. It is truly amazing what you can accomplish with a little courtesy.



911 Guy said:


> You do realize that it is the Law rather than just Uber / Lyft Policy, correct?


Both Uber and Lyft push this hard precisely because it is the law. They do not want to be sued over this. If they receive a notice of legal action over an incident of this nature, they can point not only to their stated policy of de-activation, no questions asked and no opportunity for the accused to defend himself; but also they can point to numbers of drivers de-activated in such a manner. This always has gotten them out of it.



Joesmith2012 said:


> You do realize people can die right, allergies are no joke, especially small children


Those who wrote, passed, support or enforce that legislation do not care; if they are aware.



911 Guy said:


> If you are concerned, explain yourself professionally to the rider and cancel w/o charging. Chances are your rider isn't going to want you at risk either since their lives are in your hands*going to threaten to report you, and might do so, anyway, even if you do take the passenger*.


FIFY



Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you*does the law* favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


You do, but those who wrote, voted for, support or enforce those laws do not recognise that right. I do not understand why someone else's disability should trump yours, but this is the law that is on the books.

FIFY



Z129 said:


> Both Uber and Lyft have made it clear that allergies are not an exception.


This is only because the law specifically does not allow for an exception for allergies.



BigRedDriver said:


> I don't agree with the law, but it is what it is.


I do not agree with it either, but, working to change it likely would be frustrating (and I use "frustrating" in its root meaning, here). Most people would not agree with a campaign to alter it. Half of those who would agree, would not consider it worth the bother to do anything. It is the last that far too often allows the minority to establish a tyranny over the majority.



Joesmith2012 said:


> There needs to be medical exemptions for those with allergies I would be more than happy to provide a doctors note stating my medical conditions.


At one point, the local government in the Capital of Your Nation allowed cab drivers who could document an allergy to get around this. You had to submit a documentation form or letter to the Hack Office. It stamped it, copied it and gave you a copy to keep in your cab to show Enforcement if you got stopped or caught in a hack trap of this nature. As a company official, I even beat cases before the D.C, Human Rights Office when I submitted proof of my driver's allergy. In addition, I always submitted proof that another cab was sent to fetch the customer. At some point, the Corporation Counsel awoke from his nap-at-the-switch and specifically voided the allergy exemption to bring the District of Columbia into line with the provisions of the ADA.

The law should allow an exemption and provide a means to document an allergy. To be sure, there are obstacles to this:

at what level do you maintain the database?
at what level are the documents received and reviewed?

AND

*most importantly,
*
_*WHO*_ is going to pay for all of this?

Despite that, the obstacles are not insurmountable. The question, again, becomes, is anyone willing to be bothered to do this?



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Uber could tell all partners with allergies for dogs to submit paperwork for it when we first sign up and never match them with dog pax.


The problem with this is that it is a Federal Law. To be sure, the law could be altered to require the firm to maintain the medical documentation data base. This might overcome some of the obstacles that I cited _*supra*_. The one problem might be verifying the documentation in the files of a private business. There is opportunity for fraud, as the business would want to make any legal action go away quickly.

*Q:*


BigRedDriver said:


> Could Uber/Lyft be sued?


*A:* Yes.

*Q: *


BigRedDriver said:


> On what basis?


*A:* They have money to pay a judgment against them or to buy a settlement.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> What makes you think barbershops are exempt from ADA laws?


It is convenient to the "argument" advanced.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Rushmanyyz said:


> (Not directed at IR12)
> I seriously don't care about Uber's position because, for me, it's an ethical issue and secondarily a legal issue.
> 
> In most western nations, access to service animals is a legal right and it is protected beyond whiney people who can't even discuss the mater in terms that show they have ever seen an immunologist to confirm this "severe allergy". If you have a medical condition where compliance with the law puts your health at risk, then the sensible option is to find another job.
> ...


Exactly.

Yes, allergies ARE actually a protected class under the ADA, but not in the section about service dogs (except for those dogs trained to sniff out the allergies and warn the handler then lead them away--yes, they exist). In fact, allergies are specifically mentioned as NOT exempting someone from compliance.

No matter how much access is supposed to be granted, a blind person can't be hired to drive a bus and a quadriplegic is never going to be drafted into the NFL and a deaf person isn't going to be hired as a court stenographer. It just can't be.

If your allergies are THAT severe, that they rise to the level of a DISABILITY, that means that there are some things that they DIS-ABLE you from doing. Driving rideshare is one of those things.


----------



## 911 Guy (Feb 8, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> a deaf person isn't going to be hired as a court stenographer.


I'm sure they do. Testimony from deaf sign only plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses has to also be recorded.

Officially taken thread to left field.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

911 Guy said:


> I'm sure they do. Testimony from deaf sign only plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses has to also be recorded.
> 
> Officially taken thread to left field.


They likely bring in an interpreter for that.


----------



## Rushmanyyz (Dec 1, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Yes, allergies ARE actually a protected class under the ADA, but not in the section about service dogs (except for those dogs trained to sniff out the allergies and warn the handler then lead them away--yes, they exist). In fact, allergies are specifically mentioned as NOT exempting someone from compliance.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## 5spdturbo (Jan 15, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Yes, allergies ARE actually a protected class under the ADA, but not in the section about service dogs (except for those dogs trained to sniff out the allergies and warn the handler then lead them away--yes, they exist). In fact, allergies are specifically mentioned as NOT exempting someone from compliance.
> 
> ...


Amen!

I agree


SuzeCB said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Yes, allergies ARE actually a protected class under the ADA, but not in the section about service dogs (except for those dogs trained to sniff out the allergies and warn the handler then lead them away--yes, they exist). In fact, allergies are specifically mentioned as NOT exempting someone from compliance.
> 
> ...


Amen!

I'm allergic to dogs...but I have two pups...can't breathe? I use my Inhaler...

I agree with the law

The blind lady with her guide dog I've driven twice like the law I bet....

I hate the mess the dog leaves...oh well


----------



## nutzareus (Oct 28, 2014)

OP needs to find another line of work. Good luck beating ADA laws.

But seriously I've done 2,000 trips over 4.5 years of ridesharing part-time and I can probably count on ONE hand the number of service dogs I've had to transport.


----------



## kcdrvr15 (Jan 10, 2017)

Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


Because they passed a law, that gives the dog owner rights above yours. Don't you just love the nanny state.
And you do have the right to work, but not the right to drive as a professional driver, that requires a License, if your allergic to dogs and pets, then your not only stubborn but also putting yourself and others in harms way. This is very selfish, your desire to drive even with a medically disqualifying condition that could put others at risk when you have an allergic reaction and crash your car killing others in the process.

Sorry for you, and sorry for me, I got deactivated from uber couple years ago for refusing a fake service dog, even the city's taxi inspections folks ruled in my favor saying I did not break the law, but still deactivated.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

kcdrvr15 said:


> Because they passed a law, that gives the dog owner rights above yours. Don't you just love the nanny state.
> And you do have the right to work, but not the right to drive as a professional driver, that requires a License, if your allergic to dogs and pets, then your not only stubborn but also putting yourself and others in harms way. This is very selfish, your desire to drive even with a medically disqualifying condition that could put others at risk when you have an allergic reaction and crash your car killing others in the process.
> 
> Sorry for you, and sorry for me, I got deactivated from uber couple years ago for refusing a fake service dog, even the city's taxi inspections folks ruled in my favor saying I did not break the law, but still deactivated.


Their right to be a professional driver is not being infringed, nothing stopping them from doing UberEats.


----------



## vtcomics (Oct 9, 2018)

Z129 said:


> Both Uber and Lyft have made it clear that allergies are not an exception. Nobody cares about drivers. We're replaceable.


And this is the sad reality of it. If they made allergies an exception it would be abused by tons of drivers who would claim a fake allergy just to avoid giving rides to folks with assist animals. I do sympathize with the OP, but your "rights" as a driver are like a speck of dust in the galaxy when compared to the rights of the pax.


----------



## AuxCordBoston (Dec 3, 2016)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


Try Grubhub, doordash, caviar and postmates. Then you don't have to pick up dogs. Once I picked up a woman with a service animal and during the ride listened to her speak with an Uber rep explaining how the last driver cancelled on her and how it was due to her service dog.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

nutzareus said:


> 2,000 trips over 4.5 years of ridesharing part-time and I can probably count on ONE hand the number of service dogs I've had to transport.


This is why I consider it a bad analogy when some will advance the "argument" that just as a paraplegic can not play professional baseball or a blind person can not drive a truck, so can an allergic person not drive TNC, taxicab or limousine. If you are paraplegic, on a good day, you might be able to perform three per cent of the tasks that a professional baseball player is required to perform. If you are blind, the only task that you can perform that the truck driver is required to perform is getting into the cab and firing off that diesel engine. You could put the thing into gear, but if you try to move it forward or backward, eventually disaster will be the result.

An allergic TNC, taxicab or limousine driver can perform at least ninety-five per-cent of the tasks assigned to him (,,,,and that is a conservative estimate).. Let the other five per-cent find someone who can perform the required task: hauling the service animal.

I have had a hack licence for more than a few years. If you consider twenty trips daily six days weekly and twenty six working days per month, that would be five hundred twenty trips per month. In those five hundred twenty monthly trips, I had perhaps one service dog. If I had two or three, it was unusual. As a part time driver, I might run one hundred thirty trips in a monnth. If I had more than one service dog among those, it was unusual. Empirical evidence suggests that, fewer than one per-cent of the trips involve a service dog. There are enough drivers out here that can accommodate the dog. Let then do so.



AuxCordBoston said:


> Once I picked up a woman with a service animal and during the ride listened to her speak with an Uber rep explaining how the last driver cancelled on her and how it was due to her service dog.


Did she tell the Uber representative that the driver either screened her or pulled up, saw the dog and cancelled? ,,,,,,,,,,or did she just assume that the reason that he cancelled before he arrived was due to the dog that he did not know, and, had no way of knowing, that she had?

Members of protected classes tend to be quick to holler "DISCRIMINATION!", even though there is no basis in instant fact to support that. They are quick to criticise those of us who are not members of protected classes for "profiling", but they see nothing wrong with their being quick to profile us as "discriminators".



nutzareus said:


> OPGood luck beating ADA laws.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The laws are on the books that allergy is not an excuse. As the law reads, you are stuck. You do not have to like it, but you must comport yourself in a manner that complies with the law.

You can work to change it, but break a leg on that one. Not many people will agree with you. Of those who do agree with you, few will consider it worth their trouble to do anything to change the law. Of those who will actually work with you, half of them will be whack-0s, who will do your cause more harm than good.


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

At the end of the day, if we are having an honest conversation, (which we are most definitely not), then we are all allergic to this life. That is why we all get old and die, and it's people who create things like Uber/Lyft that make life a bad experience. If there weren't such greedy cowards like them throughout history, we could have all possibly been cured from all illness and lived forever.


----------



## AuxCordBoston (Dec 3, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> This is why I consider it a bad analogy when some will advance the "argument" that just as a paraplegic can not play professional baseball or a blind person can not drive a truck, so can an allergic person not drive TNC, taxicab or limousine. If you are paraplegic, on a good day, you might be able to perform three per cent of the tasks that a professional baseball player is required to perform. If you are blind, the only task that you can perform that the truck driver is required to perform is getting into the cab and firing off that diesel engine. You could put the thing into gear, but if you try to move it forward or backward, eventually disaster will be the result.
> 
> An allergic TNC, taxicab or limousine driver can perform at least ninety-five per-cent of the tasks assigned to him (,,,,and that is a conservative estimate).. Let the other five per-cent find someone who can perform the required task: hauling the service animal.
> 
> ...


She told Uber that she never texted or called the driver to let them know she had a service dog. She specifically stated to Uber that there was a lot of traffic and that may be a reason why the driver cancelled. I got the feeling that she was used to contacting Uber and reporting drivers canceling on her. She appeared to be blind however she opened her laptop and began typing. So I'm not sure how severe the problem was. I didn't ask her about it. I kept quiet.


----------



## Slim Pete (Nov 21, 2014)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need hto sue Uber/lyft


If you're such a daisy, sit at home and watch Netflix and chill.

Don't drive.


----------



## MicNic (Jan 14, 2019)




----------



## BigBadDriver (Sep 12, 2017)

Joesmith2012 said:


> There needs to be medical exemptions for those with allergies I would be more than happy to provide a doctors note stating my medical conditions. But my worry is also for those who aren't the drivers. What if a person is driving and takes a ADA dog, then picks up their child from day care. Oh look my kid just stopped breathing in my car I wonder why


If a kid stops breathing because a dog was in the car previously, then maybe, just maybe that kid wasn't meant to live in civilization.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

MicNic said:


> 291039


Those cheapie masks do not filter out anything.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


I would say plead your case to DMV with a letter from your doctor to back up your claim. See if they can give you an exemption that you can give to Uber/Lyft. Otherwise it's just tough luck because that's the law.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

BigBadDriver said:


> If a kid stops breathing because a dog was in the car previously, then maybe, just maybe that kid wasn't meant to live in civilization.


Or peanut dust.

How long is this just going to keep going.

Dog hair is literally everywhere.


----------



## Bbonez (Aug 10, 2018)

nutzareus said:


> I can probably count on ONE hand the number of service dogs I've had to transport.


To be fair, the OP could probably count on 1 finger the number of dogs it could take to kill them.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Joesmith2012 said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly, I'm not trying to be difficult or unreasonable, I just want my medical issues respected as well as my family while I work. I don't think it's too much to ask. BTW Congress passed the medical leave act, which gives employees slash workers rights when it come to the work place. *So don't tell me I don't have a legal standing.*


Unfortunately, you do not.

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.


----------



## MicNic (Jan 14, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Those cheapie masks do not filter out anything.


Any driver with severe allergies has a physician who can recommend an effective mask or other solution. OSHA, FAA and CDC would have some good references, as well. Uber/Lyft drivers are not the only people facing this problem because service animals are allowed just about everywhere.


----------



## Michael1230nj (Jun 23, 2017)

Seriously? We have so many legitimate gripes. And we are suppose to take this as a realistic problem! These people who are in need of a Dog are for the most part Blind! If you can’t handle that Get another low paying Job!


----------



## AngelAdams (Jan 21, 2019)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


Why are you in the service industry with sever allergies? Get a desk job. Jesus it's a dog stop complaint. If it makes a mess you will make more than a whole days driving. So just shut up and drive. And if you have an actual allergy problems don't do this job. ITS NOT FOR YOU!!!!!!!! live and let live for god sake. Because of people *****ing and moaning we have to now ****ing deal with animal laws and shit. ITS A DOG!!!


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


Do you actually carry an EpiPen with you at all times and you have gotten anaphylactic shock before from dogs? Or just describing what might happen?

If not what symptoms did you get when you were in contact with a dog?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

REX HAVOC said:


> I would say plead your case to DMV with a letter from your doctor to back up your claim. See if they can give you an exemption that you can give to Uber/Lyft


Original Poster will not get that exemption. What the Registry likely will tell him is that it is a matter that he must work out with Uber and Lyft and that they will not get involved.



UberLaLa said:


> Unfortunately, you do not.
> 
> https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
> 
> Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.


I always have smacked my head upon reading this. In the transportation business, how do you assign to a "different location" in a car, a jitney or even a bus? You can do it easily on the railroad or even an aeroplane, but in a car?

..........in addition, there is the "if possible".........................the rule then fails to provide any guidelines on what to do if it _*ain't*_ possible.................



MicNic said:


> Any driver with severe allergies has a physician who can recommend an effective mask or other solution. OSHA, FAA and CDC would have some good references, as well.


The specific mask that you posted was what evoked my response.



Another Uber Driver said:


> This is why I consider it a bad analogy when some will advance the "argument" that just as a paraplegic can not play professional baseball or a blind person can not drive a truck, so can an allergic person not drive TNC, taxicab or limousine. If you are paraplegic, on a good day, you might be able to perform three per cent of the tasks that a professional baseball player is required to perform. If you are blind, the only task that you can perform that the truck driver is required to perform is getting into the cab and firing off that diesel engine.
> An allergic TNC, taxicab or limousine driver can perform at least ninety-five per-cent of the tasks assigned to him (,,,,and that is a conservative estimate).. Let the other five per-cent find someone who can perform the required task: hauling the service animal.
> 
> . Empirical evidence suggests that, fewer than one per-cent of the trips involve a service dog. There are enough drivers out here that can accommodate the dog. Let them do so.


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


Michael1230nj said:


> If you can't handle that Get another low paying Job!





AngelAdams said:


> Why are you in the service industry with sever allergies? Get a desk job. Jesus it's a dog stop complaint. If it makes a mess you will make more than a whole days driving. So just shut up and drive. And if you have an actual allergy problems don't do this job. ITS NOT FOR YOU!!!!!!!! live and let live . ITS A DOG!!!


Original poster can haul ninety five per-cent (at a conservative estimate) of the passengers who require this service. Why should less than five per-cent of the customer base keep him from doing this job, especially when there are more than enough drivers out there who can accommodate these animals? This, of course, assumes that the animals are legitimately service animals. One of the problems with these laws that are written to protect "protected classes" is that they are written in a way to encourage abuse. This is why you get "service pigs" on aeroplanes.



AngelAdams said:


> live and let live


...........precisely............................................

Let the drivers who can perform ninety-five per-cent of the tasks assigned to them continue to drive. Let those who need accommodations for their service animals use a driver who can accommodate said animals, as the overwhelming majority of drivers can do so. Let the politicians, regulators and companies come up with a means for legitimately allergic drivers can document said allergy be exempt from hauling those dogs.....................yup, yup, yup, "live and let live"..............


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I always have smacked my head upon reading this. In the transportation business, how do you assign to a "different location" in a car, a jitney or even a bus? You can do it easily on the railroad or even an aeroplane, but in a car?
> ..........in addition, there is the "if possible".........................the rule then fails to provide any guidelines on what to do if it _*ain't*_ possible.................
> 
> _Le Trunk..._
> ...





Another Uber Driver said:


> I always have smacked my head upon reading this. In the transportation business, how do you assign to a "different location" in a car, a jitney or even a bus? You can do it easily on the railroad or even an aeroplane, but in a car?
> 
> ..........in addition, there is the "if possible".........................the rule then fails to provide any guidelines on what to do if it _*ain't*_ possible.................
> 
> ...


_Le Trunk._..


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

UberLaLa said:


> _Le Trunk._..


In _*français métropolitain*_, the word is _*le coffre*_. In Québec it is usually _*la malle*_. What is funny is that sometimes in Québec and often in Louisiana it is rendered _*le tronque*_ and is spelled that way. Anything that appeared after the French left either of those places often is either a literal translation from English or the English word spelled as a French speaker would spell it. The tendency in _*français métropolitain*_ is simply to use the English word unaltered, as in _*le weekend*_, which in Québec and Louisiana is rendered _*la fin de semaine*_, literally "the end of the week"..


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> In _*français métropolitain*_, the word is _*le coffre*_. In Québec it is usually _*la malle*_. What is funny is that sometimes in Québec and often in Louisiana it is rendered _*le tronque*_ and is spelled that way. Anything that appeared after the French left either of those places often is either a literal translation from English or the English word spelled as a French speaker would spell it. The tendency in _*français métropolitain*_ is simply to use the English word unaltered, as in _*le weekend*_, which in Québec and Louisiana is rendered _*la fin de semaine*_, literally "the end of the week"..


Awesome, not that we straightened that out...all need be done now is, _who goes into the trunk...driver or pax?_


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

UberLaLa said:


> _who goes into the trunk...driver or pax?_


The dog.


----------



## Las Vegas Dude (Sep 3, 2018)

I agree with others, if your allergies to dogs will cause breathing problems with a dog sitting in the back seat with the owner then anyone with dog hair all over them would do the same. Service dogs won’t jump in and lick you or try to cuddle with you. They will get in the back seat and sit quietly with the owner.


----------



## Atom guy (Jul 27, 2016)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


Per the law, a passenger's right to travel with a service dog Trumps your allergy issue. Some people are more special than others. How we have laws written that allow people to force their issues onto others is beyond me, but that's how it is.

I'm a landlord, and one year I had to figure out how not to discriminate between the black immigrant family, the black family on section 8, and the white retired cop with a service dog.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Las Vegas Dude said:


> I agree with others, if your allergies to dogs will cause breathing problems with a dog sitting in the back seat with the owner then anyone with dog hair all over them would do the same. Service dogs won't jump in and lick you or try to cuddle with you. They will get in the back and sit quietly *on the floor*.


_Fixed that for ya..._


----------



## AngelAdams (Jan 21, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Original Poster will not get that exemption. What the Registry likely will tell him is that it is a matter that he must work out with Uber and Lyft and that they will not get involved.
> 
> I always have smacked my head upon reading this. In the transportation business, how do you assign to a "different location" in a car, a jitney or even a bus? You can do it easily on the railroad or even an aeroplane, but in a car?
> 
> ...


I've had service animals that were clearly not service animals. I don't have allergies so they are all welcomed. 
I'm sick of people pretending. Pretending that it's a service animal. 
How about be normal. Before the driver arrives call and ask if it's ok. If not cancel and get a new ride. 
I personally would rather give a dog a ride then mess with Kristen and her attitude.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

AngelAdams said:


> I've had service animals that were clearly not service animals. I don't have allergies so they are all welcomed.
> I'm sick of people pretending. Pretending that it's a service animal.
> How about be normal. Before the driver arrives call and ask if it's ok. If not cancel and get a new ride.
> I personally would rather give a dog a ride then mess with Kristen and her attitude.


If disabled people did that it would lead to them getting canceled on.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Those cheapie masks do not filter out anything.


3M Dual Cartridge Respirator Assembly 3M 07193, Large https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00079FOK0/?tag=ubne0c-20


----------



## AngelAdams (Jan 21, 2019)

Demon said:


> If disabled people did that it would lead to them getting canceled on.


Good. I wouldn't want a none dog lover driving me around anyway. I still say I'd rather take the dog than the owner.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Atom guy said:


> I'm a landlord, and one year I had to figure out how not to discriminate between the black immigrant family, the black family on section 8, and the white retired cop with a service dog.


You pick the immigrant family from Ghana and the police with his service dog and the Section-Eighters haul you into court, both with high-powered _*pro bono*_ attorneys. The best that you can do is to hire some rinky dink lawyer who usually chases ambulances and has tried (and lost) all of two cases in twenty years. These people with these _*pro bono*_ high powered lawyers who pursue frivolous cases always annoy me; _*CUJUS*_* pro bono*? is what I always ask.

You march in Mr. Kwabena Mensah, his wife Elizabeth and his son Kwaku. It is obvious from looking at them that they are black. They open their mouths and it is obvious that they are immigrants. Still, the judge rules that you discriminated against the other two and awards ten times the value of your building in "damages".



UberLaLa said:


> _Fixed that for ya..._


When I had a cab with a partition, it was tight on the floor for service dogs. As I was already aware that they were trained to lie on the floor, when I picked up someone with a service dog, I had to tell them to tell the dog to get onto the seat as there really is not much room for him on the floor. As I always have carried a Dustbuster™, and, as the seats are vinyl covered, the dog hair was no big deal.



AngelAdams said:


> I personally would rather give a dog a ride then mess with Kristen and her attitude.


Most of the dogs that you will haul are allright. In all my years in this business, I have had one dog that was trouble. My mother raised dogs, so I know how to act around them and know when _*sump'thin' just AIN'T right*_ with one. I could tell this one was not quite right. I started to do the transport and the dog was showing more and more signs of going overboard. At a red light, I got out and took a foldable military shovel from the trunk and went back to the driver's seat. I let the guy know in no uncertain terms that if that dog jumped i nto the front seat, the owner was going to have to pay a nasty veterinarian bill for a bashed up muzzle. Two blocks down the street, he had me stop, paid me and got out.

Other than that, all of the dogs have been fine.

My mother used to say "Raise poodles, not children". She raised standard poodles: the larger kind with a full-throated bark that are actually very smart dogs (the second smartest, after a Border Collie). These are not the ill-dispositioned little "yip-yip" dogs that make you want to take target practice using a single action twelve gauge loaded with target clay. The toys and miniatures are nasty due to all of the inbreeding; the same goes for Dobermans. They were highly inbred early on, as a result, they can be more than a little unstable.



Demon said:


> If disabled people did that it would lead to them getting canceled on.


That would, indeed, happen. As soon as they send a message, the trip gets cancelled. The same would apply if they called and told you that they had a dog. There used to be this taxi hailing application called MyTaxi. The only place that it ever was in North America was The Capital of Your Nation. When a driver signed up, it asked if he would accept animals. I indicated that I would. If I received a summons with an animal, there was a little doggie icon that showed. I did get a couple of customer who had animals, but no doggie icon showed. They told me that they had stopped letting it know that they had an animal, because, as soon as they did, the available cabs went from twenty one to one, and that one was far away thus declined the trip. MyTaxi merged with Hail-O and is still in Europe and Asia, but both exited North America some time past.



SuzeCB said:


> 3M Dual Cartridge Respirator Assembly 3M 07193,


_*OH MY GOODNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*_ Can you imagine pulling up to some house in the suburbs; out comes this mother with a baby in a perambulator and a four year old; the four year old takes one look at the driver who is wearing this and goes into TOTAL, COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE freak-out mode? I might pay to see that one. Then she sends a complaint e-Mail to Lyft: "Why did you send me some alien from outer space when all that I ordered was a car and a driver?"


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

UberLaLa said:


> _Le Trunk._..


Assist training specifically tells you not to store the service dog in the trunk. Clearly someone did that at some point since they make it a point to tell us not to do it.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Z129 said:


> Assist training specifically tells you not to store the service dog in the trunk. Clearly someone did that at some point since they make it a point to tell us not to do it.


Do not laugh.

When I was an official of a cab company, I took a call from a customer who had a colicky baby whom she was taking to the doctor, along with her other four children. It seems that the cab driver had insisted that she put the baby into the trunk. I asked her where she was and told her that I would send her another cab. Oh no, she was already at the doctor with her baby and other children. My response was:

"Please, Madame, do not tell me that you actually complied with his demand."

"I had to, I had to get my baby to the doctor."

I had to tell her that if this happened again, she should call me directly and if I had to, I would get my cab and haul her, her children and her baby myself, colic or none.

She actually did call us to go back from the doctor's office. That alone, surprised me. I happened to be in the radio room and saw the call slip with the assigned driver on it. Fortunately, the driver assigned to bring her home was reliable. Immediately, I got on the microphone and asked the driver if he had X dollars and Y cents on him. That was the fare (we had zones, back then, no meters, so fares within the City were fixed), I told the driver not to charge the lady anything and to give her the X dollars and Y cents; make sure that she understood that we were refunding her the fare that she had paid to that other driver; have her sign a receipt form; bring it to the office and the Company would pay him for his fare and re-imburse him for the refund that he issued He did what I told him to do. He came up and got his money. He told me that she was actually quite delighted that we refunded her money and gave her a free ride home. I did make the other driver re-imburse the company for the refund and what we paid to the second driver.

Still, this clearly was a woman who should not have had children. You DO NOT put your baby into the trunk of any car, especially a stranger's car. It is something that you JUST DO NOT DO.


----------



## Robert Larrison (Jun 7, 2018)

ROFL long thread

Psuedo pet allergy vs. phony service animals on The People's Court in the case of 'The Uber Who Couldn't Deliver'


----------



## AngelAdams (Jan 21, 2019)

Robert Larrison said:


> ROFL long thread
> 
> Psuedo pet allergery vs. phony service animals on The People's Court in the case of 'The Uber Who Couldn't Deliver'


Uber should just offer an service animal option.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

AngelAdams said:


> Uber should just offer an service animal option.


That would be incredibly illegal.


----------



## vtcomics (Oct 9, 2018)

Robert Larrison said:


> ROFL long thread
> 
> Psuedo pet allergy vs. phony service animals on The People's Court in the case of 'The Uber Who Couldn't Deliver'


LOL let's go to Doug Llewellyn for the Plaintiff's response!


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Do not laugh.
> 
> When I was an official of a cab company, I took a call from a customer who had a colicky *baby* whom she was taking to the doctor, *along with her other four children*. It seems that the cab driver had insisted that she put the baby into the trunk. I asked her where she was and told her that I would send her another cab. Oh no, she was already at the doctor with her baby and other children. My response was:
> 
> ...


Nuf said...


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

vtcomics said:


> LOL let's go to Doug Llewellyn for the Plaintiff's response!


We had a Doug Llewellyn here who was a newscaster here. I Googled him and it is the same guy! ..........so THAT is what happened to him.


----------



## Robert Larrison (Jun 7, 2018)

Judge Wapner would prolly side with the plantiffs dog especially if the dog was cute.
Judge Judy would rip new one in both sides.

All this talk has led me to realize I need I service animal.
I'm gonna get a service chicken.

Home
*Detailed Discussions of Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe*
Share|


*Author: *Veronica Hirsch
Place of Publication: Michigan State University College of Law
Publish Year: 2003
Primary Citation: Animal Legal and Historical Center
1Country of Origin: United States
*Summary:*

A detailed discussion of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States, Europe and New Zealand.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


Time for another line of work. Also, if someone dies, how can they sue?


----------



## vtcomics (Oct 9, 2018)

Robert Larrison said:


> Judge Wapner would prolly side with the plantiffs dog especially if the dog was cute.
> Judge Judy would rip new one in both sides.


LMAO!!! I miss Judge Wapner


----------



## Tweetyyy (Dec 19, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


Ubers strongest policy is safety first. Therefore you allergic reactions to dogs causes a safety problem for you as a driver. So I would be polite to riders and explain the consequences of the ride with dog. Pax will understand. Uber will have to understand their strongest policy and that is safety..


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

If you are that allergic to dogs come up with a plan and take your chances.


----------



## Mm cm (Dec 18, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


Then you cannot be professional transportation driver I suggest to find something else to do if you really are so allergic .you may be life treating to some one who cares they're animals ...I don't like animals in my vehicle because are making a mees and others pasagers are snising after them ...always I had animals after the trip I was supposed to jump in gas station to clean ...so it mean I transportation that pasager for free because I pay the cleaning after them and Uber not care about


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

AngelAdams said:


> Uber should just offer an service animal option.


Illegal. Separate is not equal.



Tweetyyy said:


> Ubers strongest policy is safety first. Therefore you allergic reactions to dogs causes a safety problem for you as a driver. So I would be polite to riders and explain the consequences of the ride with dog. Pax will understand. Uber will have to understand their strongest policy and that is safety..


If pax doesn't "understand" neither will the federal government or any judge. DRIVER would be looking at potentially $100,000s in fines to the gov't and civil award to the pax/plaintiff.


----------



## BuckleUp (Jan 18, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


Get a medical certificate. Get a second opinion and certificate from a specialist. Email both to Uber with a cover letter. Get them to acknowledge receipt. If they deactivate you, sue them for discrimination based on medical condition.

Or simpler still, 100m as you approach them, you see the dog, turn left or right into side street, or u-turn, and cancel. If you're too close, just drive past and cancel. Click 'safety concern' or 'other' and the rider is not charged.

Uber is not going to chase you for why did you cancel - millions of rides per day, hundreds of thousands of cancels per day across the system, do you really think anyone cares why a driver cancels prior to pickup.

Simple really.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

BuckleUp said:


> Get a medical certificate. Get a second opinion and certificate from a specialist. Email both to Uber with a cover letter. Get them to acknowledge receipt. If they deactivate you, sue them for discrimination based on medical condition.
> 
> Or simpler still, 100m as you approach them, you see the dog, turn left or right into side street, or u-turn, and cancel. If you're too close, just drive past and cancel. Click 'safety concern' or 'other' and the rider is not charged.
> 
> ...


Suing for adherence to a federal law.

YES, DO THAT!


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

I agree this is a complex issue.
Your situation should fall well within what would be considered reasonable accommodation in the workplace.
Get medical documentation proving your condition and send it to them.
As for the law, as somebody with a profound disability myself (though I don't have a dog due to allergies ironically), it should be updated to include allergies as the soul exception. If you do too much to undermine it, then all the progress we've made in this past century is just going to unravel and people who need these animals are going to be back to having next to no access to the world.


----------



## BuckleUp (Jan 18, 2018)

BigRedDriver said:


> Suing for adherence to a federal law.
> 
> YES, DO THAT!


Suing for deactivation due to discrimination on the basis of a medical condition.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

BuckleUp said:


> Suing for deactivation due to discrimination on the basis of a medical condition.


Good luck with that.


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

Don’t drive, quit until they offer opt out and pet friendly drivers option.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> _*OH MY GOODNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*_ Can you imagine pulling up to some house in the suburbs; out comes this mother with a baby in a perambulator and a four year old; the four year old takes one look at the driver who is wearing this and goes into TOTAL, COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE freak-out mode? I might pay to see that one. Then she sends a complaint e-Mail to Lyft: "Why did you send me some alien from outer space when all that I ordered was a car and a driver?"


My name is Darth Vader. I am an extraterrestrial from the planet Vulcan.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Joesmith2012 said:


> There needs to be medical exemptions for those with allergies I would be more than happy to provide a doctors note stating my medical conditions. But my worry is also for those who aren't the drivers. What if a person is driving and takes a ADA dog, then picks up their child from day care. Oh look my kid just stopped breathing in my car I wonder why


Your concern is real. Severe Allergies are no joke. But consider this. Many riders you encounter are dog or cat owners. It is much more likely that such a rider gets into uour car with pet dander, hair, what not, on their clothing. So, you need to weigh the risks. Driving may not be right for you. Yes, you have a right to work. But no, you don't have a right to violate ADA standards. You can try to explain to the passenger, and they might be sympathetic. But you risk being reported.


----------



## UberDrew (May 15, 2018)

Hi. I'm sorry huge fan of your post. I've been waiting for something like this to come up. 

Others are right that it is the law that.is the problem. Uber and Lyft are simply complying with the law.

With that being said, the law should be changed. People can have serious allergic reactions to animals even if they are good boys.

I would imagine they would reactivate you if you explained the situation to them.


----------



## GlenGreezy (Sep 21, 2015)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


Then this isn't for you. 
Easy answer.



Joesmith2012 said:


> There needs to be medical exemptions for those with allergies I would be more than happy to provide a doctors note stating my medical conditions. But my worry is also for those who aren't the drivers. What if a person is driving and takes a ADA dog, then picks up their child from day care. Oh look my kid just stopped breathing in my car I wonder why


No. There shouldn't be. Your allergies impede equal access for those with disabilities who need their animal.

Find work that doesn't compromise your health and we'll being.

Easy.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Rushmanyyz said:


> Actually, I don't buy your severity for a second. If your symptoms were that bad, dog dander on a rider's clothes would be just as much of a problem. You seem unconcerned when it comes to that factor so, there's some degree of hyperbole in your story about needing an EpiPen.
> 
> Service dogs are the best trained and best kept pets around. They come with carers to groom them and assist disabled people in keeping them healthy, so they should be considerably less problematic for an allergy sufferer.
> 
> ...


100% agree. Something isn't genuine about this thread. Perhaps this is a dead giveaway . . . 


Joesmith2012 said:


> My allergies aren't bad enough I would die


Buuuuuut


Joesmith2012 said:


> when I go into anaphylactic shock,


 really? If you know you won't die, there is no risk for anaphylactic shock then.

Go ahead and produce that medical note. . . along with the contact info on the MD.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Tweetyyy said:


> Ubers strongest policy is safety first. Therefore you allergic reactions to dogs causes a safety problem for you as a driver. Pax will understand. Uber will have to understand their strongest policy and that is safety..


That might seem logical, but you must remember that the law and logic are far too often mutually exclusive if not mutually destructive terms
The bottom line is that the law demands that these people and their animals be accommodated and dictates that allergy is no excuse. Argue with your logic all that you will, the law is on the books as it is. For those reasons, neither Uber nor the customer will "understand" or give you a pass. Refuse the animal and it is De-Activation Station for you.



UberDrew said:


> I would imagine they would reactivate you if you explained the situation to them.


You would imagine incorrectly. One of the things that keeps Uber and Lyft from being sued for a driver's refusal to accommodate a service animal is the No Questions Asked de-activation policy. The TNCs refer to it as "Zero Tolerance", as that is the fashionable term for this sort of thing. "Zero Tolerance" translates into normal English as: "adverse consequences to the accused, no questions asked, no opportunity for the accused to defend himself, presumed guilty even when proved innocent". One of the problems with laws that are designed to protect "protected" classes is that far too often, they go too far the other way. ADA is one such law.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

*US law forcing ADA dogs, but I'm allergic*

FTFY


----------



## Jihad Me At Hello (Jun 18, 2018)

CTK said:


> One would wonder then why you agreed to it when you signed up, because you had to agree to it to sign up. If it's that life-threatening, perhaps you should be doing something else. Like it or not, it is the law, and there is no way around it.
> 
> That would violate the law.


How? Passenger still gets picked up, they dont care how


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Uber and Lyft don't want another legal joust against the ADA to lose again... it's easier and cheaper to fire the driver.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Jihad Me At Hello said:


> How? Passenger still gets picked up, they dont care how


The problem with that is that some Institution of Higher "Learning" will do a study, find that people with service animals wait all of two minutes longer for a ride and the advocates, the "progressives" and the people with the animals will complain, sue and point to the ADA. Waiting five minutes for the ride was acceptable until it was pointed out to them that everyone else was getting his ride in three. Once they are made aware of that, five minutes is no longer an acceptable time to wait for the ride to arrive.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

I can't even believe that this is still being debated. It is a FEDERAL law . . . FEDERAL. There is no arguing, whining, or complaining about it. The owner of a little Boutique may have a dog allergy. It doesn't matter. The dog is still allowed to go into the shop. What part of service animal do you guys not understand? A blind person needs this dog to function to the best of their capability in this world. A diabetic needs this dog to prevent diabetic shock. These people can literally not function without the service animals. This is not even a debatable topic. Go ahead and refuse them. Get deactivated. Any person who is too ignorant to fully grasp the reasoning of this federal law and the purpose of a service animal, is not meant to be in the service industry anyways. Probably should not be functioning out in public in general. This entitlement mindset is ridiculous nowadays


----------



## Acheese11 (Nov 8, 2018)

so animals bother you but not cigarette smoke. "NO SMOKERS ALLOWED" How would that fly? Sometimes I feel like I am choking. These paxholes smell so bad.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Also Uber feels less liable saying they stop partnership with driver vs they fired a driver for a medical disorder. Either way a driver with a lawyer will get a check if they take Uber to court over it.
> You absolutely have legal standing. If Uber deactivate you for refusing a pax because you are allergic to dogs, they violate your rights to respect pax rights. Any driver that take them to court for deactivation is gonna get a check. I said what I said to prove Uber has the knowledge, resources, and ability to not violate anyone's rights but chose to do otherwise.


Most likely, you will be writing a check. The court isn't going to go against the ADA. And when you sue and lose, defendant can petition for fees. By all means, ask a lawyer. Your allergies aren't going to get you an exemption from the requirement to allow service animals.



Acheese11 said:


> so animals bother you but not cigarette smoke. "NO SMOKERS ALLOWED" How would that fly? Sometimes I feel like I am choking. These paxholes smell so bad.


You can, of course, prohibit smoking in your car.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Joesmith2012 said:


> BTW Congress passed the medical leave act, which gives employees slash workers rights when it come to the work place.


I am not sure how this is supposed to trump the ADA. They are unrelated.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> No it isn't how do you think grocery stores and other public places handle this. They have an associate that isn't allergic to accommodate that customer.


Not the best analogy. They don't send the customer to a different, dog friendly store. Having another employee within their store help the person is still accomodating the customer.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> No the justice department doesn't deactivate you.


The justice department would not even get involved, unless Uber told us all it was ok not to serve a disabled person.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> She drives Uber, she didn't sign up to be a dog groomer...


???



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Being reinstated or exonerated has nothing to do with suing Uber for ignoring your own ADA rights.


Your ADA rights protect you from Uber not hiring you for being disabled. That, and insuring you can call an Uber in spite of your allergies. That is about all.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Uber drivers aren't the first service industry people to deal with ADA accommodations but we sure are making it rocket science.


I would say, mostly, the problem lies in the way many people misinterpret the ADA and its application.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> What makes you think barbershops are exempt from ADA laws?


My question is, with respect to your passion on the subject, what makes you think you are qualified to assert a legal opinion? You are entitled to your opinion, for sure, and to express it. But you have a couple of people on this thread with actual legal educations, telling you that you are mistaken. Shouldn't that be enough?



Wonkytonk said:


> Never considered that. What do you do with lapdogs people carry into your car? Seems like that would be a god awful whiny ride.


You run the risk of a dog peeing in the car to mark turf. Those sprays don't always work too well.


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

Joesmith2012 said:


> You do realize people can die right, allergies are no joke, especially small children


----------------------------
Unfortunately, you are not going to win this argument. 
In 5400 rides I have had - maybe 15 dogs and half of those owners called and warned me that they had a dog. 
Worrying about what MIGHT happen is pointless. 
If you get a ride with "a pup", explain your situation to the owner and request they call another car. 
As for your rights - you have the right not to drive " Ride Share".


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

Daisey77 said:


> I can't even believe that this is still being debated. It is a FEDERAL law . . . FEDERAL. There is no arguing, whining, or complaining about it. The owner of a little Boutique may have a dog allergy. It doesn't matter. The dog is still allowed to go into the shop. What part of service animal do you guys not understand? A blind person needs this dog to function to the best of their capability in this world. A diabetic needs this dog to prevent diabetic shock. These people can literally not function without the service animals. This is not even a debatable topic. Go ahead and refuse them. Get deactivated. Any person who is too ignorant to fully grasp the reasoning of this federal law and the purpose of a service animal, is not meant to be in the service industry anyways. Probably should not be functioning out in public in general. This entitlement mindset is ridiculous nowadays


Thank you, I get so sick and tired of these folks whining about it not being fair, what about me, ... It's the law. You don't like it, lobby for change. Pilots or drivers can't be blind, paraplegics can't be manual laborers, people with nut allergies can't work in a Planters factory, ... if you can't make a reasonable accommodation that will permit someone to do the job then too bad. You may not like that the pax rights with a legitimate service animal trump your but it's the law. May not be fair or right but it's the law. Don't like it, quit crying and do something to change it.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Joesmith2012 said:


> You do realize people can die right, allergies are no joke, especially small children


Are you a small child?

I assume you are not actually Emma Stone but can we assume you at least within Emma Stones age?



Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


Take it up with Congress, not Uber. Allergies is not an excuse to deny Service Animals PER Federal Law.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Uber could tell all partners with allergies for dogs to submit paperwork for it when we first sign up and never match them with dog pax.


Against federal law.



Joesmith2012 said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly, I'm not trying to be difficult or unreasonable, I just want my medical issues respected as well as my family while I work. I don't think it's too much to ask. BTW Congress passed the medical leave act, which gives employees slash workers rights when it come to the work place. So don't tell me I don't have a legal standing.


You dont have a legal standing because whatever that lae says does not negate ADA law and I assure you, ADA will Trump just about any other law, especislly since ADA specifically says allergies is not an excuse of the law.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> No it isn't how do you think grocery stores and other public places handle this. They have an associate that isn't allergic to accommodate that customer.


Right, and the space is big enough to do so. You are your own employee in a confined space. You are free to call one of your associates if you have one, to take over driving the vehicle while you wait it out away from the animal, but that is impractical even if you somehow had someone that could relieve your driving. Calling another uber doesnt count as they are not your associate but a competing driver.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Being reinstated or exonerated has nothing to do with suing Uber for ignoring your own ADA rights. If nothing else Uber will settle out of court to avoid this blowing up in their face.
> 
> If I was getting a haircut, my service animal needs to sit on my lap , and my barber is allergic to dogs. Do the barber get booted from the shop? Or do another barber in the shop take me with an apology from original barber. Uber drivers aren't the first service industry people to deal with ADA accommodations but we sure are making it rocket science.


What ADA rights? ADA specifically states allergies is not a protected class.



BigBadJohn said:


> Can you have a service/comfort pet as a driver? If so, get a ferocious breed, like a Pit Bull bred for fighting and have him/her greet your passengers. Should put an end to this nonsense.......


Yes Pawtism has autism and drivers with a service dog


----------



## UberDrew (May 15, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> That might seem logical, but you must remember that the law and logic are far too often mutually exclusive if not mutually destructive terms
> The bottom line is that the law demands that these people and their animals be accommodated and dictates that allergy is no excuse. Argue with your logic all that you will, the law is on the books as it is. For those reasons, neither Uber nor the customer will "understand" or give you a pass. Refuse the animal and it is De-Activation Station for you.
> 
> You would imagine incorrectly. One of the things that keeps Uber and Lyft from being sued for a driver's refusal to accommodate a service animal is the No Questions Asked de-activation policy. The TNCs refer to it as "Zero Tolerance", as that is the fashionable term for this sort of thing. "Zero Tolerance" translates into normal English as: "adverse consequences to the accused, no questions asked, no opportunity for the accused to defend himself, presumed guilty even when proved innocent". One of the problems with laws that are designed to protect "protected" classes is that far too often, they go too far the other way. ADA is one such law.


Any actually evidence that they would not make an exception or are you just speculating?


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

BigBadDriver said:


> If a kid stops breathing because a dog was in the car previously, then maybe, just maybe that kid wasn't meant to live in civilization.


 Hahaha!

If the kid was that hypersensitive to animal dancers, hes have to be a bubble boy as so many peoole have dog hair on their clothing.



BuckleUp said:


> Suing for deactivation due to discrimination on the basis of a medical condition.


You are not in America, that is not how the law works here. The federal law that requires us to take serbice animals explicitly states allergies is NOT an excuse to deny service.



Jihad Me At Hello said:


> How? Passenger still gets picked up, they dont care how


Disabled get subpar or slower service is discrimation.


----------



## Merc7186 (Jul 8, 2017)

This thread is great and the OP clearly gets it....lol


----------



## corniilius (Jan 27, 2017)

If you include that bit of info in your driver profile, might give you a little more leeway. Probably wouldn't hurt to take a doctors not to the greenlight hub. At least then you can say that you tried. Then there is always the option of finding a regular job and getting our of theo whole gig economy.


----------



## xgamrgeekx (Dec 1, 2018)

In my last job we were required to go through a training to physically control out of control teens. We were told, “If you don’t pass this training or subsequent ‘maintenance’ trainings, you will lose your job.” This isn’t discrimination, it’s a safety standard for what we dealt with. I was once injured on the job and in physical therapy, I told them that until I was healed I couldn’t physically restrain anyone during a time when they were doing major cutbacks. WITH A DOCTOR’S NOTE. I was then asked, “Are you telling me you are unable to perform your duties?” I immediately saw where the conversation was heading and it was NOT in my favor. I ended up on light duty which meant I was stuck on graveyard shifts doing room checks because they were locked doors. They could accommodate by temporarily making me a higher paid entry level worker.

Not really different from Uber/Lyft making us agree to transport service animals. We agreed to it before we were accepted and if we don’t we lose our jobs. Simple. If you can’t do a job requirement for x reason, why would you even apply? Find something else you can do with expectations you can comfortably live with. Because in this field and this argument you don’t have a leg to stand on. Because as rideshare drivers, there is no light duty option, this is black and white, you do it or you lose your job.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


cancel the ride as soon as you see the dog. it may sound unethical , but your health is more important than $3.75. and uber / lyft will not budge.


----------



## Crosbyandstarsky (Feb 4, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> So we can be deactivated for not taking Assist dogs, but I have strong allergies with dogs ever since I was a child. So is uber going to pay for my $300 epi pen, are they going to reimburse me for the ER bills when I go into anaphylactic shock, my face swells up, hives all over and I can't breath, and then I won't be able to work for a couple days and I can't even get in my car again until it's detail really well which will be another $100. My allergies aren't bad enough I would die from being with an animal in a confined small space like my car, but if someone does die they need to sue Uber/lyft


I don't care if your allergic to dogs. You do your job right and take them. You're hired to do a job. If you can't do it right then you shouldn't have that job


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

What some people fail to realize is, these people's independence and daily life activities, that you and I take for granted, literally depend on these dogs. So you're asking them to not go to work, not go to the doctor's appointment, rely on a medical team to assist them 24/7 because they have to give up their dog because others have an allergy or they just don't want dog hair in their car? Whatever your selfish reason is, it in no way trumps their reason for NEEDING the dog. They literally cannot do normal daily activities or function in daily life without this dog. Put yourself in their position. You are blind trying to go to doctor's appointment but you can't go because the taxi driver or the bus driver or Uber driver won't take you because of your dog . You're being denied your right to live. . . to function in routine daily activities because the driver may have the sniffles and itchy eyes afterwards. Give me a break!



kevin92009 said:


> cancel the ride as soon as you see the dog. it may sound unethical , but your health is more important than $3.75. and uber / lyft will not budge.


Yes please do. The market is oversaturated anyways. Please tell all your friends to deny the rides as well


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

So I'm blind, I also have an allergy to pretty much any hair/ fir that isn't human, I choose not to have a dog because relatively acute exposure to animals causes me to have rather unpleasant symptoms.
I see both sides of this.
I'm sorry but people make some pretty outlandish claims here pertaining to disability issues, like a service dog sheds wads and wads of hair, among others. If it shed that much hair it would have none left after the first day, and I don't think you're seeing blind people with service dogs that appear to have been shaved down to the skin.

If your allergy was anywhere near severe enough to put you into shock, you would have died as a child. You wouldn't have been able to go to school because you would have been in a classroom with 30 other children, many of whom brought dog hair in on their clothing.
I sincerely doubt that some ten minutes of exposure is going to trigger your symptoms, much less symptoms that are anywhere close to dangerous. If it was you could never escape it unless you could migrate to a dog free world or live in a bubble.
I wish you luck in convincing Uber to reimburse you for some Benadryl. I don't think you'll be successful unfortunately, but to me that would be reasonable accommodation unless you can prove that your allergy is as severe as you make it out to be. Also open the window a bit.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Daisey77 said:


> I can't even believe that this is still being debated. It is a FEDERAL law . . . FEDERAL. There is no arguing, whining, or complaining about it. The owner of a little Boutique may have a dog allergy. It doesn't matter. The dog is still allowed to go into the shop. What part of service animal do you guys not understand? A blind person needs this dog to function to the best of their capability in this world. A diabetic needs this dog to prevent diabetic shock. These people can literally not function without the service animals. This is not even a debatable topic. Go ahead and refuse them. Get deactivated. Any person who is too ignorant to fully grasp the reasoning of this federal law and the purpose of a service animal, is not meant to be in the service industry anyways. Probably should not be functioning out in public in general. This entitlement mindset is ridiculous nowadays


We see it over and over. Some people enjoy beating a dead horse.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

goneubering said:


> We see it over and over. Some people enjoy beating a dead horse.


You mean a dead miniature horse right? A full size horse can't be a service animal.


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

goneubering said:


> We see it over and over. Some people enjoy beating a dead horse.


Yes. Oh, and every single anti civil rights position in history has been based on a straw man argument, hyper over exaggerations of facts or just down right false information. The only exception to that is abortion, because both sides actually have quantifiable, objective arguments to support their position that are based on fact.
Most of the time when people complain about people with disabilities, they are coming from a place of narcissism. Thankfully that's not a protected class or we'd all be in trouble.


----------



## Uberdriver2710 (Jul 15, 2015)

Liquid ass your fake service dog pax!


----------



## Butter3031 (Oct 13, 2018)

I don't know much but when I signed up I had to agree to take service animal's prior to being activated. So if you agreed knowing you are allergic there is nothing that can be done. But service animal's are allowed anywhere a person needs to go, even restaurants.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Daisey77 said:


> I can't even believe that this is still being debated. It is a FEDERAL law . . . FEDERAL. There is no arguing, whining, or complaining about it.


Anyone can still whine, complain, argue and debate all that they want about the law. Hillary did not win.



Daisey77 said:


> Any person who is too ignorant to fully grasp the reasoning of this federal law and the purpose of a service animal, is not meant to be in the service industry anyways. Probably should not be functioning out in public in general. This entitlement mindset is ridiculous nowadays


When did not wanting to suffer allergic reactions become "entitlement"? While on the subject of "entitlement" we can add it to the list of words that mean "someone who does not agree with me.".

Few debate the reason for the law. The problem with parts of this law, and, with parts of other laws designed to "protect" these "protected classes" is that far too often they go to far the other way and place undue burdens on the "non-protected".



Acheese11 said:


> so animals bother you but not cigarette smoke. "NO SMOKERS ALLOWED" How would that fly? Sometimes I feel like I am choking. These paxholes smell so bad.


You might actually get away with that. Discrimination against tobacco smokers by employers is being tolerated increasingly. If you discriminated against reefer smokers, you might get into trouble, but, discriminate against tobacco smokers all that you will. No one will do anything about it. Reefer is fashionable; tobacco _*ain't*_.



Disgusted Driver said:


> Pilots or drivers can't be blind, paraplegics can't be manual laborers, people with nut allergies can't work in a Planters factory, ...


These are common analogies, some of which have been posted in this very topic. The problem with them is that all of them are bad. On any average day, an allergic driver can perform ninety-five per-cent of the tasks assigned to him. That is a conservative estimate. Only on the best of days can a blind person perform even five per-cent of the tasks assigned to a pilot or driver. Only on the best of days can a paraplegic perform even five per-cent of the tasks assigned to a manual labourer. There is not one day on which someone with a peanut allergy could perform any task assigned to a Planter's factory worker except, perhaps, to punch the time clock.



UberDrew said:


> Any actually evidence that they would not make an exception or are you just speculating?


The law specifically states that allergy is not an excuse and there are no exceptions. Experience has shown that there are no exceptions (any more).Uber, Lyft and VIA have announced "Zero Tolerance" policies on this. For those who do not know what "Zero Tolerance" means, it means that upon receipt of a relevant complaint, it is assumed that the complaint is legitimate, you are sacked no questions asked; no opportunity to defend yourself and even if you do manage to prove your innocence you are still presumed guilty and still sacked.



Crosbyandstarsky said:


> I don't care if your allergic to dogs.


...........and the allergic do not care about people's dogs, either...............................



Daisey77 said:


> What some people fail to realize is, these people's independence and daily life activities, that you and I take for granted, literally depend on these dogs.


No one is asking these people to do anything of the kind. Most of the drivers out here can deal with the dogs. Let those who can, deal with them. Let those who can not, provide appropriate medical documentation.



Daisey77 said:


> they just don't want dog hair in their car


The dog hair must be cleaned out of the car before the driver hauls the next passenger. That takes time (READ: money). Who is going to pay for my time? Why should I lose due to something that is not my fault? Why should I suffer the consequences?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

xgamrgeekx said:


> It's entitlement because we *all *checked that little box saying we understand that we *have *to take service animals *despite allergies or fears of said animals.* By checking that box you legally acknowledged that you are willing to do what we have to do *by law. *


You acknowledge no such thing. You acknowledge what the law is. You acknowledge that Uber or Lyft will impose sanctions if you do not comply. You do not acknowledge that you are willing to do it. You do not have to be "willing"; you simply must do it. Hillary did not win, so there is no requirement for "willingness". If Warren or Harris wins in 2020, there might be.



xgamrgeekx said:


> Until that law is changed, either stop doing rideshare, or stop being a whiney little about it.


I can whine about it all that I will. There is no requirement to like it. There is no bar to my expressing any dislike or disagreement. Hillary did not win. You might consider that expressing disagreement, or, being "whiney" (of course, anyone whio disagrees is automatically "whiney"), is the first step to bringing change.

While on that subject, we can add "whiney" to the list of words that mean "someone who does not agree with me".



xgamrgeekx said:


> And it isn't discrimination to say 'don't do rideshare' as I outlined with the example from my last career above.


Relevance?


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

There's a cost to living in a world that's shared between some seven billion people. We all have to compromise, give and take or it doesn't work out.
If people were dropping dead because of acute exposure to animals then the law on this wouldn't quite be what it is. Or maybe it would be, because those people wouldn't make it to adulthood anyway no matter what they did.


----------



## xgamrgeekx (Dec 1, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Relevance?


Others in this thread crying discrimination for others saying the same.

By marking the box you are implying that you are willing. I have signs on my car stating there is audio and video recording in progress. Nowhere does it say to enter you must consent to the recordings. I assume you read the sign, it's very, very obvious on the back windows, and therefore you consent by opening the door and entering the vehicle.

Also, thank God Hillary lost, though I have no idea what that has to do with anything here.

Solutions have also been suggested such as asking if the passenger would mind finding another driver, and argued against. It's a fine line to walk if you want to do this, but are unwilling to carry out 100% of what is expected.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Hillary did not win, so there is no requirement for "willingness". If Warren or Harris wins in 2020, there might be.


Not sure what this is supposed to mean. How is "willingness" to abide by a law, or terms of a contract, effected by one political office or other?

The terms state that you agree to their terms, whatever the current, prevailing terms might be, every time you log in to use the app. The legal presumption is that, since you were told that in writing, and logged in, you are in agreement. It is like the implied consent, that if you are issued a drivers license and operate a motor vehicle, you consent to the rules of the road.

Hillary, Bernie, Donald, have nothing to do with it.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

911 Guy said:


> You do realize that it is the Law rather than just Uber / Lyft Policy, correct?


Is this statement really true? Ride-Share did not exist at the time the ADA was passed. Does a ride share vehicle meet the definition of "public accommodation" in the ADA law? Has it ever been adjudicated, have new regulations been written on this?

I know that some states and other jurisdictions require it as per law, but has it been determined as far as federal law?


----------



## Kurt Halfyard (Dec 13, 2017)

Original Poster is long gone, guys. Congrats, you have chased them off!


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

I_Like_Spam said:


> Is this statement really true? Ride-Share did not exist at the time the ADA was passed. Does a ride share vehicle meet the definition of "public accommodation" in the ADA law? Has it ever been adjudicated, have new regulations been written on this?
> 
> I know that some states and other jurisdictions require it as per law, but has it been determined as far as federal law?


Think about it this way:
Speed limits were enacted way before rideshare... way before a Bugatti Veyron could achieve 250 mph...

Just because a business is relatively new does not require special tests for compliance with the ADA.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Kurt Halfyard said:


> Original Poster is long gone, guys. Congrats, you have chased them off!


I noticed, but it's become more or less an internecine battle at this point. Best to just let it play out I think, and perhaps try to dissuade the political bee ssss being injected on the part of the board's policing side of the battle.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> I've only had one rider that needed a service dog for seizures, pax was cool and told me ahead of time. Just tell the rider you risk going into shock at the wheel in a confined place with service animal and you can not complete trip. They probably value their life and get another Uber. If you have any problems with Uber mention FMLA and lawsuit in the same sentence and they will change their tone real quick. Uber is liable on both fronts and kind of stuck between a rock and hard place.


I would do this while recording it either with audio or video just in case they complain. Then atleast you have something to work with if you get deactivated. I would probably get a note from an actual doctor and carry that with you. I can't imagine someone seeing a note stating you have an allergy on a doctors letterhead actually pushing to still take the dog and/or complaining to get you deactivated.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> I noticed, but it's become more or less an internecine battle at this point. Best to just let it play out I think, and perhaps try to dissuade the political bee ssss being injected on the part of the board's policing side of the battle.


Why just from the Moderator side, wonk? How about, we address it as what it is. A rule of law issue. Its not a right or left thing, so nobody should be introducing a slant toward one side or the other.


----------



## BuckleUp (Jan 18, 2018)

xgamrgeekx said:


> In my last job we were required to go through a training to physically control out of control teens. We were told, "If you don't pass this training or subsequent 'maintenance' trainings, you will lose your job." This isn't discrimination, it's a safety standard for what we dealt with. I was once injured on the job and in physical therapy, I told them that until I was healed I couldn't physically restrain anyone during a time when they were doing major cutbacks. WITH A DOCTOR'S NOTE. I was then asked, "Are you telling me you are unable to perform your duties?" I immediately saw where the conversation was heading and it was NOT in my favor. I ended up on light duty which meant I was stuck on graveyard shifts doing room checks because they were locked doors. They could accommodate by temporarily making me a higher paid entry level worker.
> 
> Not really different from Uber/Lyft making us agree to transport service animals. We agreed to it before we were accepted and if we don't we lose our jobs. Simple. If you can't do a job requirement for x reason, why would you even apply? Find something else you can do with expectations you can comfortably live with. Because in this field and this argument you don't have a leg to stand on. Because as rideshare drivers, there is no light duty option, this is black and white, you do it or you lose your job.


There is always the 'cancel' button when you are 50m away.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Maybe I'm lucky in that all the dogs I've had in my car have been clean, quiet, polite, and non-smelly. Interestingly enough, all of these dog owners have been similarly clean, quiet, polite, and non-smelly.

Perhaps could Uber/Lyft have a line in their database to indicate if a person is allergic to dogs and simply not assign riders who have dogs. Simple. That's how the issue is addressed everywhere else: get someone else to take care of the customer with the dog.


----------



## mmn (Oct 23, 2015)

Fargle said:


> ...Perhaps could Uber/Lyft have a line in their database to indicate if a person is allergic to dogs and simply not assign riders who have dogs. Simple. That's how the issue is addressed everywhere else: get someone else to take care of the customer with the dog.


Could work, but like everything else it would probably just get abused.

"I don't want dogs, I'll just mark myself allergic"...


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Caturria said:


> There's a cost to living in a world that's shared between some seven billion people. We *all* have to compromise, give and take or it doesn't work out.


(emphasis added)

The problem is that neither the "protected" nor their advocates are willing to compromise. On this question, a compromise would work. The overwhelming majority of drivers can haul the dog. Those who can not are a decided minority. Let those who can haul the dog, do so. Those who can not, let them provide medical documentation that they can not.



Caturria said:


> If people were dropping dead because of acute exposure to animals then the law on this wouldn't quite be what it is


Do not bet on that.

I do not know about Canada, but here, far too often, the law and "common sense" are mutually exclusive, if not mutually destructive terms. Further, in this country, the law is becoming a means by which the minority establish a tyranny over the majority. The only result of the last is disaster. Look at what we have at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W...............and that is only a small disaster, when compared to what could result. There is a reason that people compare that guy's style and tactics to those of Herr Schicklgruber. The only thing that they seem to be missing is the lunacy of Signor Mussolini.



xgamrgeekx said:


> *Others* in this thread crying discrimination for others saying the same


 (emphasis added)

I have emphasised the operative word. Please address those remarks to the group that fits into the emphasised word.
.



xgamrgeekx said:


> thank God Hillary lost, though I have no idea what that has to do with anything here..


"Obedience is not enough" -Eric Arthur Blair, _*1984*_ (published June, 1949).


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

mmn said:


> Could work, but like everything else it would probably just get abused.
> 
> "I don't want dogs, I'll just mark myself allergic"...


I should have said "with doctor's note".


----------



## xgamrgeekx (Dec 1, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I have emphasised the operative word. Please address those remarks to the group that fits into the emphasised word.


Because it wasn't directed at any one person.



Another Uber Driver said:


> "Obedience is not enough" -Eric Arthur Blair, _*1984*_ (published June, 1949).


Fair enough, but still not sure what this thread has to do with mentioning a specific politician losing a presidential race. I've read 1984, I understand that blind obedience to an obviously corrupt system doesn't help anyone but the tyrant. If you want something changed about the ADA, then contact your "representatives" and ask them to do something about it.

How about this question: would it be fair to a pax who is ill and needs a ride to the clinic for me to deny that person based on their health status because *I* don't want to catch whatever s/he has? Or could that be construed as discrimination? I realize it isn't the same thing, but we are in the customer service industry. Most places have signs saying they can deny service at their discretion, but do you really want to toe that line with a legally protected class?

At the end of the day, you do whatever you have to in order to make it home. Right? If you don't like the law, work to change it and in the meantime, deny those pax and hope you don't get deactivated. Because the law is the law and by checking that box you agreed to the term that passengers with service animals are to be allowed in your vehicle. Like it or not. If you weren't willing to do that, you shouldn't have been activated in the first place and should probably find other work.

For me, it isn't about blind obedience. I love all animals and if they fit safely in my car, they are welcome to come along. Cat, dog, bird, lizard doesn't matter. You got a flying squirrel? Right on. A boa constrictor? cool! The last dog owner I picked up, they got in the back and that dog immediately crawled over my center console into my lap. Cutest, friendly cocker poodle mix (I'm guessing) and was obviously not an ADA service animal. I didn't even ask if he was an emotional support animal, because it doesn't matter to me. After handing him back to his owner, he sat in the bed she brought along the whole trip, despite the fact that I have a blanket for that same purpose. In 3 months he's the second dog to get in my car. The first was for an actual blind person and I didn't even notice the dog the whole 30+ minute trip to the airport. He sat on the floor under his owner's legs. Seems to me it doesn't happen often enough to be a big deal.

What I really feel bad about is the blind woman who has a service dog and went to the store without him. She said, "He doesn't like shopping." I thought, doesn't like shopping, or you've been denied rides because of him and don't want to waste your time filtering drivers who refuse to take him? It's a pathetic, entitled attitude for any driver to have, in my opinion, after checking the box that implies you are willing to do so.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

xgamrgeekx said:


> Because it wasn't directed at any one person.
> 
> Fair enough, but still not sure what this thread has to do with mentioning a specific politician losing a presidential race. I've read 1984, I understand that blind obedience to an obviously corrupt system doesn't help anyone but the tyrant. If you want something changed about the ADA, then contact your "representatives" and ask them to do something about it.
> 
> ...


That was either not a service dog, or she wasn't the handler. Maybe a friend that picked the dog up from the groomer for the handler?

No handler would leave their SA with a stranger.


----------



## corniilius (Jan 27, 2017)

Kurt Halfyard said:


> Original Poster is long gone, guys. Congrats, you have chased them off!


Huzzah! We don't need that kind of crybaby entitlement here.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

corniilius said:


> Huzzah! We don't need that kind of crybaby entitlement here.


He'll be back.


----------



## xgamrgeekx (Dec 1, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> That was either not a service dog, or she wasn't the handler. Maybe a friend that picked the dog up from the groomer for the handler?
> 
> No handler would leave their SA with a stranger.


Not sure which dog I mentioned you mean. If you meant the blind woman who left her dog at home, she had a cane and I assisted her into my car. We went from her apartment to the grocery store.
If you meant the one who's dog crawled into my lap, she was definitely the owner. Took her from home to the Audi dealership to get her car.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

xgamrgeekx said:


> Fair enough, but still not sure what this thread has to do with mentioning a specific politician losing a presidential race.


For the Left, expression of dissent, disagreement, dislike of a law that it supports is just as bad as failing to obey that law.

Several posters to this topic have told the posters who have expressed disagreement with the law under consideration to stop complaining about it. That is wrong. People still have every right to complain about something that they do not like. If you do not like their complaints, do not read them. Do not, however, tell them not to post said complaints. That is suppression of dissent. This is the reason for mentioning a certain failed candidate. Had the failed candidate been successful, you would have been expected to like it, as well as obey it. Hence, my quote from 1984.



xgamrgeekx said:


> If you want something changed about the ADA, then contact your "representatives" and ask them to do something about it.


Indeed you can and should. I am none too sanguine about said "representatives' " (and I agree with the quotes) being too sympathetic with anyone who might do this, but it can and should be done. Despite that, no one has any business telling another poster not to post his dissent with (cue up echo chamber, thunder and lightning) *TH-TH-TH-TH-TH-E L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-A-A-A-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W.
*



xgamrgeekx said:


> How about this question: would it be fair to a pax who is ill and needs a ride to the clinic for me to deny that person based on their health status because *I* don't want to catch whatever s/he has?


I do not generally engage in Socratic dialectic, as I recognise it for the rhetorical trap that it is. I will, however, answer this question with "It depends on the illness"



xgamrgeekx said:


> we are in the customer service industry.


I am in business to make a profit. "Customer service" is strictly a secondary consideration. My behind comes first. Everyone else's can wait on line.



xgamrgeekx said:


> but do you really want to toe that line with a legally protected class?


I am guessing that you are asking me if I want to "test that with 'a legally protected class' ". If indeed, that is what you are asking, allow me to state that I know what the law is. I am aware that I must comply with that law. I am not aware, however, that I am required to like it. I am further not aware that I am prohibited from expressing my dissent with certain provisions of that law.

All that is required is that I obey that law. It is not Y-E-T required that I like it. I have been down that road with more than one lawyer in civil rights matters.



xgamrgeekx said:


> If you don't like the law, work to change it and in the meantime, deny those pax and hope you don't get deactivated.


Where, in this topic, have I stated that I do not haul those passengers?

My working, or failing to work, to change it does not preclude my expressing my dissent from certain provisions of that law.



xgamrgeekx said:


> Because the law is the law


Statements such as that will cause me to express my dissent even louder and take to task those who make those statements. A statement such as that implies that I must not express my dissent with it , because "*IT'S THE LAW!"

*



xgamrgeekx said:


> by checking that box you agreed to the term that passengers with service animals are to be allowed in your vehicle. Like it or not. If you weren't willing to do that, you shouldn't have been activated in the first place


 (emphases added)

I agreed to no such thing nor did I express any such "willingness". By checking that box, I stated that I understood the law, the policies of Lyft and Uber, that I would comply with that law and the consequences for failing to comply with it. I never stated that I agreed with it nor did I ever state that I was "willing" to do it. I stated only that I was aware that I must do it.



xgamrgeekx said:


> should probably find other work.


I should do this because I do not agree with certain provisions of certain laws governing this business? On what authority do you make that statement?



xgamrgeekx said:


> . Seems to me it doesn't happen often enough to be a big deal..


Precisely..................the requests for accommodation of service animals are so few, and, the drivers allergic to them are such a minority that there are more than enough drivers to accommodate those animals and to render service to the customer who uses them. The number of drivers who can accommodate those animals are sufficient to the point that the person who uses these animals need not wait an inordinate amount of time to receive service.



xgamrgeekx said:


> What I really feel bad about is the blind woman who has a service dog and went to the store without him. She said, "He doesn't like shopping." I thought, doesn't like shopping, or you've been denied rides because of him and don't want to waste your time filtering drivers who refuse to take him?


Half of these drivers who refuse to haul these dogs do so because they simply do not want to be bothered. Even I have no sympathy for them. I do, however, agree with those who are physically allergic who refuse to haul those dogs provided that they can document that. One person's disability should not trump another's, especially when there are those readily available who do not have a disability.



xgamrgeekx said:


> It's a pathetic, *entitled* attitude for any driver to have, in my *opinion*,


 (emphases added)

Yup. you are "entitled" to your "opinion". You can post it all day. I will never tell you not to express that opinion. I will, however, let you know that I disagree with it. It is only "pathetic" and "entitled" because their attitude does not conform to yours or to the "approved" attitude.



xgamrgeekx said:


> checking the box that implies you are *willing* to do so.


(emphasis added)

You are not stating that you are willing. You are stating that you are aware of the law; aware that you must comply; aware of the consequences of failing to comply. You can do all of the foregoing without being "willing" to do so. You need not like it; you need, however, do it.


----------



## xgamrgeekx (Dec 1, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> On what authority do you make that statement?


Not authority, but past experience. Where employees were told if you don't like the policies, find another job. 10 years of that being drilled into my head


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

xgamrgeekx said:


> Not authority, but past experience. Where employees were told if you don't like the policies, find another job. 10 years of that being drilled into my head


.........and that gives you the licence to tell those who do not agree with the law to find another line of work? This, of course, passes over our not being employees........................


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Fargle said:


> Perhaps could Uber/Lyft have a line in their database to indicate if a person is allergic to dogs and simply not assign riders who have dogs. Simple.


Thus would require the person with the dog to somehow label themselves as having the dog. Requiring them to do so is illegal.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> Thus would require the person with the dog to somehow label themselves as having the dog. Requiring them to do so is illegal.


Well, that would be a complication. Has anyone realistically tried to revise or revisit these laws? Then again, Uber/Lyft could just do it first and wait for the legal fallout, much like how they got started.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> No it isn't how do you think grocery stores and other public places handle this. They have an associate that isn't allergic to accommodate that customer.


Since when?



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Uber could tell all partners with allergies for dogs to submit paperwork for it when we first sign up and never match them with dog pax.


Except Uber has no idea who has a service animal and its illegal to require people to ID themselves as such. Substitute "pax with service animal " with "(any ethnicity or religion) pax" Its the same thing in the eyes of the law. You cannot require them to Id as Jewish or African American or refuse service because of it, same with the service dog.

why is this even being discussed, the law is cut and dry. Contact your lawmakers if you don't like it.



Fargle said:


> Well, that would be a complication. Has anyone realistically tried to revise or revisit these laws? Then again, Uber/Lyft could just do it first and wait for the legal fallout, much like how they got started.


Yeah, not gonna happen.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> > Well, that would be a complication. Has anyone realistically tried to revise or revisit these laws? Then again, Uber/Lyft could just do it first and wait for the legal fallout, much like how they got started.
> 
> 
> Yeah, not gonna happen.


I predict a highly publicized incident in which a severely allergic TNC driver has a reaction to a proper service dog which results in a nasty collision. Then things will get very interesting.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Acheese11 said:


> so animals bother you but not cigarette smoke. "NO SMOKERS ALLOWED" How would that fly? Sometimes I feel like I am choking. These paxholes smell so bad.


A more accurate analogy would be "no African American pax" they have the same protections


Fargle said:


> I predict a highly publicized incident in which a severely allergic TNC driver has a reaction to a proper service dog which results in a nasty collision. Then things will get very interesting.


If someone is that allergic, they would be just as affected by some dog or cat owners that hey in their car.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> For the Left, expression of dissent, disagreement, dislike of a law that it supports is just as bad as failing to obey that law.
> 
> Several posters to this topic have told the posters who have expressed disagreement with the law under consideration to stop complaining about it. That is wrong. People still have every right to complain about something that they do not like. If you do not like their complaints, do not read them. Do not, however, tell them not to post said complaints. That is suppression of dissent. This is the reason for mentioning a certain failed candidate. Had the failed candidate been successful, you would have been expected to like it, as well as obey it. Hence, my quote from 1984.
> 
> ...


You might say, that you are _*willingly*_ checking the box, signing the contract, what have you. Unless you did so under duress, you basically have, in fact, agreed to be willing.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

You could make the argument that the "duress" is that you do it or you do not get to drive, but, you would not get far with that one. I agreed to do it, but I am not agreeing with it.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

I have a couple of issues with some of your statements, AUD. For the sake of discussion, your quotes follow my comments and are underlined.

The first sentence below here is a gross generalization. I personally support a persons right to voice dissent. In fact, every "leftie" i know supports this concept.

"For the Left, expression of dissent, disagreement, dislike of a law that it supports is just as bad as failing to obey that law."

What is the basis for the next statement?

"This is the reason for mentioning a certain failed candidate. Had the failed candidate been successful, you would have been expected to like it, as well as obey it.  "

With regard to the next point, I read the comments as suggestive, proposing that rideshare might not be a good fit for someone with severe allergies, due to frequent exposure to pet owners, whether they have an animal with them or not, because the dander is likely present on chothing. Etc. Some were worded more coarsely than others, but, nobody really needs "authority" to make a suggestion, do they?
"I should do this because I do not agree with certain provisions of certain laws governing this business? On what authority do you make that statement?"

And, lastly, the point, and intent of the ADA is to assure disabled citizens are able to avail themselves of any goods or services as if they weren't disabled. Suggesting that somebody has to use a special bus, cab, Uber, store, etc., is not really in keeping with this.

"Precisely..................the requests for accommodation of service animals are so few, and, the drivers allergic to them are such a minority that there are more than enough drivers to accommodate those animals and to render service to the customer who uses them. The number of drivers who can accommodate those animals are sufficient to the point that the person who uses these animals need not wait an inordinate amount of time to receive service."

You mention extensive experience with civil rights lawyers. Can you describe why, and what your experience was like?

I studied the law, practiced as a litigation paralegal, served as an evidence technician, and worked in several other capacities within two "white shoe" firms over the length of my career. I would be interested in hearing what your experiences with these lawyers was.

It doesnt sound altogether good.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

UberBeemer said:


> The first sentence below here is a gross generalization. I personally support a persons right to voice dissent. In fact, every "leftie" i know supports this concept *as long as you dissent from opinions with which they disagree as well*


FIFY

The old California radicals did, indeed, support your right to dissent, even from their points of view. The newer bunch, some of my age group, but, certainly those who came later, are the most mindless, doctrinaire, intolerant, lock-stepping and disrespectful. bunch that it ever has been my misfortune to encounter. My disillusionment with the Left began in the Happy Valley of Western Massachusetts and it has been downhill since then.

The recent violent suppressions of right wing speakers by the ultra-left, and applauded by the supposed "main stream" left only confirms that my disillusionment remains valid. I do not agree with many of those speakers that the ultra left suppressed with their violence, but, they do have the same right that the AntiFa has to express their opinions. People call it KKKlantiFa for a reason. That the so-called "mainstream" left applauds them, shows its hypocrisy.



UberBeemer said:


> "For the Left, expression of dissent, disagreement, dislike of a law that it supports is just as bad as failing to obey that law."
> 
> What is the basis for the next statement?
> 
> "This is the reason for mentioning a certain failed candidate. Had the failed candidate been successful, you would have been expected to like it, as well as obey it.  "


She is a nanny state liberal. Nanny staters have no tolerance for disagreement. Thought control is one of their goals.



UberBeemer said:


> With regard to the next point, I read the comments as suggestive, proposing that rideshare might not be a good fit for someone with severe allergies, due to frequent exposure to pet owners, whether they have an animal with them or not, because the dander is likely present on chothing. Etc. Some were worded more coarsely than others, but, nobody really needs "authority" to make a suggestion, do they?
> "I should do this because I do not agree with certain provisions of certain laws governing this business? On what authority do you make that statement?"


What right does he, or anyone else, have to tell someone that he should find another line of work? Who is that poster to whom I responded to tell anyone that? TNC work is a fine fit for ninety five per-cent of the tasks that the allergic driver is required to perform, and that is a conservative estimate. Why should he be denied that choice of work because he can not perform fewer than five per-cent of the tasks required of him, especially when there are numerous drivers who can perform the task? The bottom line is that there is no harm, as the person with the dog is not kept waiting an inordinate amount of time nor is the allergic driver compelled to suffer. As there is no harm; there is no foul.

Consider that Wal-Mart will hire a courtesy clerk who is confined to a wheelchair. That courtesy clerk can perform most of the tasks required of him, but, the one task with which he will have extreme difficulty, at best, and, at worst, will not be able to perform at all, is to help customers to the car, cab, Uber/Lyft car or bus stop with their purchases. This task is one that a courtesy clerk handles frequently. The number of courtesy clerks on duty confined to wheelchairs at any given Wal-Mart is low. There are other courtesy clerks and even other employees who can step in and take up that task. It gives the guy in the wheelchair an opportunity to hold a job despite his disability. Allowing an allergic driver to work TNC but pass on an overwhelmingly small minority of tasks affords the allergic driver an opportunity, despite his disability.



UberBeemer said:


> And, lastly, the point, and intent of the ADA is to assure disabled citizens are able to avail themselves of any goods or services as if they weren't disabled. Suggesting that somebody has to use a *special bus, cab, Uber,* *store*, etc., is not really in keeping with this. (emphasis added)
> 
> "Precisely..................the requests for accommodation of service animals are so few, and, the drivers allergic to them are such a minority that there are more than enough drivers to accommodate those animals and to render service to the customer who uses them. The number of drivers who can accommodate those animals are sufficient to the point that the person who uses these animals need not wait an inordinate amount of time to receive service."


This is one reason why I do not get into Socratic dialectic. I recognise it for the rhetorical trap that it is. You cast this question in such a way that if I do not give an "approved" response, I am advocating "separate but equal". Marry, Sirrah, it is the car driven by the allergic driver that is "special", not the car driven by the non allergic driver.

Consider, too, that the stores are permitted to summon a non-allergic employee to wait on the customer. From the way in which you cast that question, the ADA requires disabled people who need service dogs to have a "special employee" wait on them.

What the "no allowance for allergies" is doing is contrary to the intent of ADA. It denies someone a choice of gainful employment due to a disability that effects only a minute portion of the tasks that he might be required to perform; tasks that can readily be performed by someone else.

Bottom line: It is allowing one disability to trump another.



UberBeemer said:


> You mention extensive experience with civil rights lawyers. Can you describe why, and what your experience was like?
> 
> I studied the law, practiced as a litigation paralegal, served as an evidence technician, and worked in several other capacities within two "white shoe" firms over the length of my career. I would be interested in hearing what your experiences with these lawyers was.
> 
> It doesnt sound altogether good.


_*Oh, it ain't good*_. It served to cement my already vehement disagreements with certain provisions of civil rights law. We can start with "burden shifting". It is un-American. You accuse; you make your case. Burden shifting makes the accuser's case for him and makes the accused try to dismantle it. While that is certainly one good form of defence, it is not a requirement, in most cases. If an accuser can not make his case, it is supposed to fail.

What made my particular case even worse was that we got an obviously biased judge. There were _*ex parte*_ communications between the bench and the plaintiffs, as I later learned. There were even hints that our lawyer was not quite on the up and up, and he lobbied the Board for the job.

The bottom line was that they got only a paper win. They found out that given the choice between the balance sheet of a D.C. Cab company in the late twentieth or early twenty first century and that of a Colorado short line in the 1930s, you took the Colorado railroad every time. The one thing of value, at which the do-gooders, the plaintiffs and their high powered _*pro bono*_ lawyers (_*CUJUS pro bono?*_) were salivating, they could not touch. Even the judge told them that in one of his _*ex parte*_ communications. The in-fighting that had plagued my company since its foundation in 1926 did pay off on that one.

The lawyers tried to trip me up and bait me, but, I have been deposed by more than one lawyer over the years. I also handled the company's collision cases which gave me even more experience. More than one lawyer has told me what a no good son of a streetwalker I am and how he wants another crack at me. They hate me. I wear that as a badge of honour.

It also served to cement my vehement disagreement with "disparate impact". If you are overtly and deliberately discriminating for no valid reason, yes, suffer the consequences. If you are simply doing business legally (the law as it is on the books notwithstanding), you should not suffer.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

If i read correctly, you don't really have any legal expertise, would that be fair to say? Experience in that you were invilved in court cases, perhaps. I wouldn't take that away from you. But no expertise, such as a JD or even Paralegal degree/cert?
Just a low opinion of lawyers in general based on a bad experience?

I have seen attorneys lose cases, and then claim everything from bias judge, to various skulduggery. Would you share the nature of your case thst went so poorly? You have piqued my interest.

Also, while we are chatting, allow me the leeway of turning an argument back at you. You say no one has the "authority" to suggest a hyper allergic driver might not be a good fit.

I ask, what authority do you have to label secretary clinton a nanny state advocate of thought control?

Alternatively, or concurrently, if you wish, what "authority" exists that allows you do proclaim another has no "authority" to express an opinion?. And, if there might be such "authority", why does it exist for your position and not someone else's?



Fargle said:


> I predict a highly publicized incident in which a severely allergic TNC driver has a reaction to a proper service dog which results in a nasty collision. Then things will get very interesting.


It would. But i suspect someone so strongly allergic will just cancel and move on.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

UberBeemer said:


> If i read correctly, you don't really have any legal expertise, would that be fair to say?


Yes.



UberBeemer said:


> Just a low opinion of lawyers in general based on a bad experience?


I have a low opinion of certain types and based on certain experiences. When one is deposing me, I consider him to be the worst no good fish eyed son of a streetwalker, or, the lowest disease ridden streetwalker on the planet. It helps to turn me into the [rectal aperture] that I need to be when an opposing lawyer is deposing me.



UberBeemer said:


> I have seen attorneys lose cases, and then claim everything from bias judge, to various skulduggery. Would you share the nature of your case thst went so poorly? You have piqued my interest.


We will begin with the judge. He spent twenty five years at Justice in the Civil Rights Division as an attorney. If that does not engender bias, I do not know what will.

Keep in mind, too, that I know people and run across others. The _*ex parte*_ stuff was told to me by various people, some of whom I trust, some of whom I do not. What was striking was the consistency of all of their stories.

What really got me about the do-gooders is that they found this appropriately "pathetic" victim as one of their plaintiffs. The _*Washington Post*_, which at the time, was not only notorious for hating cab drivers and cab companies, but also, was the Official Organ of The Compulsionist/Socialist Party of the Nanny States of America, gave them all of the play that they wanted and some that they did not need. "Look at this icky cab company and what it did to this poor lady who only wanted to go downtown to buy a dress for her grand daughter". The lady even admitted at deposition that she never called my company, she always called one of two others. She was put up to it by her daughter who worked for the do-gooders.

The suit was basically over supposed red-lining of certain neighbourhoods by the cab companies. There was nothing deliberate about it. Drivers just did not hang around in certain neighbourhoods looking for customers. That was not, and, still is not, against the law. This is where the "disparate impact" comes into play and why I have so much contempt for it.

If you refuse to take someone to certain neighbourhoods, and, have no good reason for doing so, that IS against the law. Suffer the consequences. You can not tell me to work certain neighbourhoods, especially if there are not sufficient customers there.

What is really funny is that a suburb here, Alexandria, Virginia, had a law that required a cab driver to spend sixty per-cent of his time in Alexandria. At the time, the Hack Inspector there admitted that the law was unenforceable. Now, given all of the "taxi technology", it is enforceable. Still, the Hack Inspector there will not enforce it, because he knows that most of the cabs licenced there can not get sufficient business within the City of Alexandria. They must go to National Airport to get sufficient customers.

There was this Governor in Maryland, Paris Glendenning. He noted that many businesses did not want to open locations in Prince George's County, Maryland (another suburb). He wanted the Maryland Legislature to pass laws requiring them to do so. What is funny is that the Legislature was ready to do it, until the legal experts told them that it would not stand. You can not tell someone where to do business.



UberBeemer said:


> I ask, what authority do you have to label secretary clinton a nanny state advocate of thought control?


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


Another Uber Driver said:


> I do not get into Socratic dialectic. I recognise it for the rhetorical trap that it is.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Marry, Sirrah, it is the car driven by the allergic driver that is "special", not the car driven by the non allergic driver.


The ADA is designed so that the disabled customer can take any bus, plane, uber, visit any bakery, and not be shunned. It also protects disabled people from being turned down for employment based on disabilities. The authors did not include exemptions for the specific reason that such exceptions lead to loopholes exploited by unscrupulous employers, service providers, etc. Would you agree, given some of the attitudes you encounter, that a number of non allergic would try to claim allergies, for example? The act was written knowing that people will try to make loopholes to suit themselves, not to punish the allergic driver.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

UberBeemer said:


> Would you agree, given some of the attitudes you encounter, that a number of non allergic would try to claim allergies, for example?


Let them submit medical documentation. That is how the District of Columbia handled it for years. But enough of the Socratic dialectic. I do not get into it for a reason.



UberBeemer said:


> The act was written knowing that people will try to make loopholes to suit themselves, not to punish the allergic driver.


But the bottom line is that it DOES punish the allergic driver.......a little twist on "disparate impact", -eh?


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Socratic Dialectic is basically discussion in pursuit of truth. Are you saying you don't pursue truth? Reading what you say, You seem ok with asserting what you say is truth, but just don't like to discuss it?

Getting back to the concept of authority, you made remarks on this thread, as i pointed out, that question someone's "authority", as you put it, to make a suggestion based on certain facts that were mentioned.

I am stuck on this, because, if a person tells somebody they have no authority, doesn't that imply an assumption of "authority" that the teller doesn't really possess?



Another Uber Driver said:


> Let them submit medical documentation. That is how the District of Columbia handled it for years. But enough of the Socratic dialectic. I do not get into it for a reason.
> 
> But the bottom line is that it DOES punish the allergic driver.......a little twist on "disparate impact", -eh?


 Why not engage? Is it easier to just, forgive the lack of a kinder term, preach?

And as far as the impact of the law, the discussion here started with an honest question, and an honest answer. Do i have to... yes, by law... and several pages into it, we wound up with some terse words, some politicized rants, and a partridge in a pear tree...

The thing about creating legislation is, you try to protect "the reasonable man". It is very tricky to create perfect legislation. Not so much because the legislators aren't smart. Most are very smart. The rub comes when some involved won't allow the sort of exemptions. It might be their constituency, or it might be that they try to craft laws in a way that leave room for the states, and even home rule cities, to express the finer points.

An interesting thing about the ADA, it only received 8 votes against it between two chambers of congress, and Bush signed it without missing a beat. It isnt necessarily perfect, but it's hard to call it liberal.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> But the bottom line is that it DOES punish the allergic driver.......a little twist on "disparate impact", -eh?


This is why I tragically anticipate a raging shiatstorm when an allergic reaction causes a crash.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

I can definitely see why it's viewed as putting ones medical condition above another but at the same time, the allergy is not classified as a disability and therefore it is not a "protected class". Perhaps the best solution would be to get an anaphylactic allergy reclassified as a disability? Although I'm not sure anaphylaxis would meet the definition of disability as it is more episodic than chronic and typically doesn't substantially limit one or more major life activities. It has somewhat of a control Factor


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Fargle said:


> This is why I tragically anticipate a raging shiatstorm when an allergic reaction causes a crash.


again, if a person is so allergic that is could be life threatening, they would most like encounter a dog owner that triggers this attack long before a service dog comes into play. you're barking up the wrong tree here.

For the most part, an animal allergy is an inconvenience that can be managed. If the severity is so great that it impairs their ability to drive and they ignored it, I'd think the driver would be the libel one. I'd also argue that the allergy itself is a disability.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

UberBeemer said:


> Socratic Dialectic is basically discussion in pursuit of truth. Are you saying you don't pursue truth?


This is precisely why I call it a rhetorical trap. There is a loaded question, for you. There is a reason that the Ancient Athenians gave Sokrates a nasty cocktail, especially after he asked for free dinner. Aristophanes portrayed him as he did for a reason. Read Νέφαλοι (_*The Clouds*_) for a view of Sokrates that they do not teach you in school; a contemporary view, at that. Sokrates went as far as to mention it in his Άπολογία (Apology).

In Socratic dialectic, one person has control of the discussion. You _*never but ever*_ yield control of the discussion.



UberBeemer said:


> You seem ok with asserting what you say is truth, but just don't like to discuss it?


I will, but not in that format.



UberBeemer said:


> Getting back to the concept of authority, you made remarks on this thread, as i pointed out, that question someone's "authority", as you put it, to make a suggestion based on certain facts that were mentioned.
> 
> I am stuck on this, because, if a person tells somebody they have no authority, doesn't that imply an assumption of "authority" that the teller doesn't really possess?


It does nothing of the kind. The poster whose statement I questioned was telling me (or was it Original Poster, or another poster? I am too lazy to go back and look) not to do something, that he was not qualified to do something. Who is he to determine that? He is no one to determine that. What makes him think that he gets to tell someone that he is or _*ain't*_ qualified to do something? You can cite the law all that you will, and, the law is on the books, but the law _*ain't*_ always in the right.

Original Poster, and several others, myself included, are stating that the law is wrong on this one. Some posters are, at best, hinting that I have no business making such a statement; at worst, they are telling me that I can not make such a statement. Who are they to tell me that? They are no one to tell me that. They have no business telling me, or anyone else who disagrees with certain provisions of that law, that we are not to express disagreement.



UberBeemer said:


> Why not engage? Is it easier to just, forgive the lack of a kinder term, preach?


I will, but not in the format in which you are trying to get me to engage.



UberBeemer said:


> And as far as the impact of the law, the discussion here started with an honest question, and an honest answer. Do i *have to... yes*, by law.


..(emphasis added)

I have emphasised the operative words. It is what I have been stating throughout this. Yes, you *must* do it. There is nothing, however, that requires you to like it, nor is there anything that prohibits you from expressing your disagreement with it. Some posters have been telling others not to express any disagreement. This is what prompted my responses. My experience has shown me that, of late, those who are the most intolerant of disagreement with their views have been those on the Left. Their expression of this intolerance has ranged from mild reproach and demands for silence to outright violence.



UberBeemer said:


> The rub comes when some involved won't allow the sort of exemptions.


^^^^^^^^This, indeed; the allergic are among those worthy of an exemption.^^^^^^^^



UberBeemer said:


> they try to craft laws in a way that leave room for *home rule cities*, to express the finer points.


 (emphasis added)

On a related note..........The District of Columbia initially allowed allergic cab drivers to file medical proof of their allergy. The Hack Office
then made a copy, stamped both original and copy, and gave the driver the stamped copy to keep in his cab. This way, if Law Enforcement or Hack Inspectors stopped him for passing a person with an animal (or if he got caught in a hack trap), he could show the form and be sent on his way. At some point, someone in the Corporation Counsel;'s Office (predecessor to Attorney-General) pointed out that this conflicted with the provision of ADA that is under discussion in this topic. Despite that, the District of Columbia did allow it to continue for a few years until someone changed the language in the exemption provision of Title Thirty-One (the D.C. Municipal Regulations that govern for hire vehicles) simply to allow them to decline to transport animals other than service animals. What is funny about that is that there is a specific provision in that same Title Thirty One that allows a cab driver to decline to transport an animal (except for a service animal).

Odds are that, given its history with this, were there a "home rule" provision in ADA, D.C. would re-instate the allergy exemption, perhaps conditionally. As I have noted one of your comments _*infra*_, but have yet to address it, keep in mind that everyone knows what is running the District of Columbia.



UberBeemer said:


> An interesting thing about the ADA, it only received 8 votes against it between two chambers of congress, and Bush signed it without missing a beat. It isnt necessarily perfect, *but it's hard to call it liberal*.


 (emphasis added)

I am aware that it passed a Democratic Congress under the Administration of Bush Senior and that he "willingly" signed it His motivation was not that it passed by a veto-proof majority; he was in favour of it. It might surprise you to know that I am aware that "Affirmative Action", another thing with which I disagree vehemently, has its roots in the Administration of Richard Nixon (....not one of my favourite people; may he rest in peace).

My jabs at the "liberals", or the Left are mostly for their intolerance of expressed dissent and nanny statism. While I do disagree with the "no tolerance for allergies" provision of the ADA, my responses here are prompted more by those telling me, and other posters, to stop complaining. Those who do not like the complaints need not read them. If anyone is holding a firearm to anyone's head and compelling him to read these complaints, if he will tell me where he is, I will send the Sheriff's deputies to help him.



Fargle said:


> This is why I tragically anticipate a raging shiatstorm when an allergic reaction causes a crash.


What is funny is that I am aware that such a thing has occurred only once. I forget the most of the details as it was some time past.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

I think what i see here, is you saying will discuss only if you can control by not allowing, or addressing questions that present another point of view.

But i don't see that as discussion, so much as making a speech.

I do have an issue with blanket statements and gross generalizations too. Terms like "everyone knows..." or lumping people into groups. Terms like "liberal" or "snowflake", i see as tools of bullying, not conversational. 

I also believe that in spite of your protest that you won't engage in Socratic Dialectic, that we have just been doing so. 

Thanks for chatting. I think i learned a few things.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

UberBeemer said:


> present another point of view.


Present it; simply do not be the one who asks all of the questions and expect me to be the one who provides all of the answers. In Socratic dialectic, it is the asker who controls. it quickly becomes very one sided and the answerer is faceplanted before he realises what has happened. This is what pee-yo-ed the Ancient Athenians so much about Sokrates and his "Thinkery", as Aristophanes called the :"Academy"



UberBeemer said:


> But i don't see that as discussion, so much as making a speech.


Present your points; assault mine. Do not, however, try to control by asking all of the questions and expecting that I will fall into the trap of only providing answers.



UberBeemer said:


> Terms like "liberal" or "snowflake", i see as tools of bullying, not conversational.


While I have used the former, in this discussion, I have not used the latter. I shy from the latter except for purposes of mockery.



UberBeemer said:


> I also believe that in spite of your protest that you won't engage in Socratic Dialectic, that we have just been doing so.


I have indulged you here and there, as I would anyone, but, with the caution that I will step away from it when I sense an attempt to control the discussion.



UberBeemer said:


> Thanks for chatting. I think i learned a few things.


Marry, thank you, as have I.................................(*****tips Washington Senators baseball cap)


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> again, if a person is so allergic that is could be life threatening, they would most like encounter a dog owner that triggers this attack long before a service dog comes into play. you're barking up the wrong tree here.
> 
> For the most part, an animal allergy is an inconvenience that can be managed. If the severity is so great that it impairs their ability to drive and they ignored it, I'd think the driver would be the libel one. I'd also argue that the allergy itself is a disability.


Allergies don't usually work like that. The crux is the meeting if two immovable objects.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Fargle said:


> Allergies don't usually work like that. The crux is the meeting if two immovable objects.


Allergies do in fact work just like this.

I'm allergic to cats. If a cat owner get in my car, I know. my eyes itch, I get congested, sneezy, it takes all of about 2 minutes of them sitting in my car before I know they are a cat owner.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Last time. 

You are running a business. You are not employed by a business. 

As a business owner you may not discriminate based on disability. 

Sorry, fight it all you want. 

It is law.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Present it; simply do not be the one who asks all of the questions and expect me to be the one who provides all of the answers. In Socratic dialectic, it is the asker who controls. it quickly becomes very one sided and the answerer is faceplanted before he realises what has happened. This is what pee-yo-ed the Ancient Athenians so much about Sokrates and his "Thinkery", as Aristophanes called the :"Academy"
> 
> Present your points; assault mine. Do not, however, try to control by asking all of the questions and expecting that I will fall into the trap of only providing answers.
> 
> ...





UberBeemer said:


> I think what i see here, is you saying will discuss only if you can control by not allowing, or addressing questions that present another point of view.
> 
> But i don't see that as discussion, so much as making a speech.
> 
> ...


its refreshing to read through a debate handled in a mature, even tempered manner. so rare on the interwebs these days.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> Allergies do in fact work just like this.
> 
> I'm allergic to cats. If a cat owner get in my car, I know. my eyes itch, I get congested, sneezy, it takes all of about 2 minutes of them sitting in my car before I know they are a cat owner.


My allergies do work as I described. Not saying what they are, but sometimes there's a reaction. Sonetimes not.


----------



## dave_guy (Aug 2, 2017)

Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


I want to agree with you but your thinking is wrong, it's not all about you. It's the way things work unfortunately, there are rules to this game. I'm on your side and there are ways around this as explained in previous posts. You can't win this one but you can be mad.



FLKeys said:


> No different than peanut allergies. I had a lady freak out because I had a can of peanuts in my car to snack on during the night. She saw them yelled at me for having them and cancelled the ride saying she was highly allergic to them. Was I wrong to have them in my car? I say no, but I understand her concerns. Not the same as being forced to take someone with a dog, but still a medical concern.


I carry peanuts as well, good energy


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

https://uberpeople.net/threads/blin...ed-to-let-her-in-car-with-service-dog.307282/

If what this woman says is true, you do not get de-activated, no questions asked, from Uber if you refuse a service dog.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

I read in their policy somewhere, I will have to go and try to find it, that if they get 2 reports of you refusing a service animal, you will be deactivated. I don't know if that's their policy for everything ... two reports on one specific issue is grounds for deactivation or if it's specifically the service animal policy.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

So here is their current policy. It sounds like it's automatic deactivation if it is determined the driver specifically denied the ride because of the service animal, after an investigation

OR

It is deactivation if there is more than one plausible complaint from Riders with service animals saying the driver refused to take them


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Daisey77 said:


> I can definitely see why it's viewed as putting ones medical condition above another but at the same time, the allergy is not classified as a disability and therefore it is not a "protected class". Perhaps the best solution would be to get an anaphylactic allergy reclassified as a disability? Although I'm not sure anaphylaxis would meet the definition of disability as it is more episodic than chronic and typically doesn't substantially limit one or more major life activities. It has somewhat of a control Factor


Allergies ARE classified as disabilities. They can manifest in many different ways and can, and sometimes do, interfere with daily activities, and can, in more severe cases, cause death.

As a DISABILITY, allergies mean there are some things you can't do, or can't do without accommodations.

For any sort of animal allergy, the solution is to take a daily allergy medication to suppress the symptoms.

If this won't work, you may not be able to work in an industry like rideshare or Taxi driving, not only because of the Service Animal issue, but because you will have MANY pax that have all sorts of pets, and their clothing will have pet hair, dander, and saliva (or the airborne enzymes of the saliva) all over it. This will end up in the air of your car.

Disabilities are called disabilities because they disable you from doing things. Driving rideshare could be one of them.

I have tried to give examples of other disabilities that would preclude people with them from having certain jobs. Some have said that the specific analogies I used weren't good examples for one reason or another. Without getting into that argument, the point I was trying to make remains. It is the very nature of disability.

As a matter of fact, there are even Service Dogs for certain allergies. They detect the proximity of the allergen (hopefully) before it can affect the handler.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> Allergies ARE classified as disabilities. They can manifest in many different ways and can, and sometimes do, interfere with daily activities, and can, in more severe cases, cause death.
> 
> As a DISABILITY, allergies mean there are some things you can't do, or can't do without accommodations.
> 
> ...


Well if that's the case, then she needs to get a disability form filled out and signed by doctor. That way Lyft and Uber have to accommodate her. She probably needs to find another job in my opinion but if she really wants to do rideshare, she needs to get a disability form. Her initial statement is hypocritical anyways. she initially says the dog could cause anaphylactic shock but then says her allergies aren't bad enough where she could die. Anaphylactic definitely has a the chance of dying. No if ands or buts about that


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Daisey77 said:


> Well if that's the case, then she needs to get a disability form filled out and signed by doctor. That way Lyft and Uber have to accommodate her. She probably needs to find another job in my opinion but if she really wants to do rideshare, she needs to get a disability form. Her initial statement is hypocritical anyways. she initially says the dog could cause anaphylactic shock but then says her allergies aren't bad enough where she could die. Anaphylactic definitely has a the chance of dying. No if ands or buts about that


You're missing the point. If she was that allergic, that medication doesn't help, then she can't drive at all because PEOPLE will have the allergens on them.

And, again, we come back to the law, which says that allergies are not an exemption from the Service Animal accomodation. Uber and Lyft are actually SUPPOSED to deactivate if she can't accommodate Service Animals.

Or is she supposed to drive the car empty?

Actually, there is an "accomodation" that could be made... she could drive Eats exclusively. Food only, which would come from dog-free kitchens.

There! Problem solved!


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> You're missing the point. If she was that allergic, that medication doesn't help, then she can't drive at all because PEOPLE will have the allergens on them.
> 
> And, again, we come back to the law, which says that allergies are not an exemption from the Service Animal accomodation. Uber and Lyft are actually SUPPOSED to deactivate if she can't accommodate Service Animals.
> 
> ...


Well there is an EpiPen for anaphylactic shock to prevent her from dying (hopefully) but yes I do agree she should not be driving. for the most part, we're all trying to tell her she needs to find another job. She doesn't want to apparently, for whatever reason.

Yes I know allergies are not an exception. You stated that allergies are a disability though. That's why I stated she needs to get a disability form filled out. so she can be technically declared disabled. Then Uber and Lyft would have to accommodate her to the best of their ability because she would be classified as disabled. Disabled . . . not just allergic. Which would make her an equal class not a subclass. It was level out the playing field. So to speak


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Daisey77 said:


> Well there is an EpiPen for anaphylactic shock to prevent her from dying (hopefully) but yes I do agree she should not be driving. for the most part, we're all trying to tell her she needs to find another job. She doesn't want to apparently, for whatever reason.
> 
> Yes I know allergies are not an exception. You stated that allergies are a disability though. That's why I stated she needs to get a disability form filled out. so she can be technically declared disabled. Then Uber and Lyft would have to accommodate her to the best of their ability because she would be classified as disabled. Disabled . . . not just allergic. Which would make her an equal class not a subclass. It was level out the playing field. So to speak


But it doesn't work like that. It goes back to the idea of someone with a severe pea/nut allergy trying to get a job "on the floor" at Planter's.

The accommodations have to be "reasonable". Asking them to be complicit in violating federal law, especially one designed to clarify civil rights, as the ADA is, is entirely unreasonable.

Now, if the DRIVER needs a SA, that's a different story entirely. Uber MUST accomodate, so long as the DRIVER is able to comply with all of the requirements of the job. Dog must not take up a seat required for passengers, etc. If a handler has a dog too large to SAFELY fit under his/her legs while driving max pax, then it becomes the Driver's responsibility to accomodate his/her own disability.... drive an XL vehicle but only take X rides, for example, so that the front seat and its associated floor space for legs can be used by the dog and the pax are all in the back seats... OR drive an XL that actually allows for driver+7 so that the same accommodation can be made.

If Uber allows downrates because of the existence of the SA, then they are in violation. The 180 days of change Dec. rules can, and should, be called upon, where any downrates without a reason or for a reason out of the Driver's control are eliminated.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Tweetyyy said:


> Ubers strongest policy is safety first. Therefore you allergic reactions to dogs causes a safety problem for you as a driver. So I would be polite to riders and explain the consequences of the ride with dog. Pax will understand. Uber will have to understand their strongest policy and that is safety..


You must be new...


----------



## GreenSubaru (Oct 31, 2018)

The Rational Response: Kindly explain to PAX that you are severely allergic to dogs and cannot safely operate a vehicle carrying a dog. Offer to refund cancellation fees. otherwise just cancel. This will cover the 1/500 incidences 99%.

My response: SUE


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

GreenSubaru said:


> My response: SUE


My response to ^^^^^^ - so I take it you're in the 1% of drivers who opted out of arbitration?


----------



## Tweetyyy (Dec 19, 2018)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> You must be new...


Not at all new


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

I laugh every time I see this thread pop up in my feed. Will it ever die off?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Fargle said:


> My allergies do work as I described. Not saying what they are, but sometimes there's a reaction. Sonetimes not.


I'm allergic to dann near everything inhaled. Cats dogs horses dust mites trees weeds cockroaches molds and the list goes on. I get 4 shots every two weeks. I also have moderate to severe asthma.

So I know a bit about allergies. And btw I have cats and dogs. (You tend to become desensitized to your own pets).

A reaction is often due to a buildup of allergens. So you pass an oak tree--you're allergic to it and maybe don't even know. But its not enough to cause symptoms. Then you pass a field. Weeds and grass. Still nothing.

Then the next thing you encounter is the last straw--and you have a reaction. May even be severe. Its NOT that one thing. Its the collection of them you've encountetered.

That's partially why I'm able to deal with my pets. I try like heck to minimize other exposures.

Fyi I do sniffle and sneeze at the vet. My vet is allergic too btw.

And shots work great. Just takes a while to work. Up to a year.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I'm allergic to dann near everything inhaled. Cats dogs horses dust mites trees weeds cockroaches molds and the list goes on. I get 4 shots every two weeks. I also have moderate to severe asthma.
> 
> So I know a bit about allergies. And btw I have cats and dogs. (You tend to become desensitized to your own pets).
> 
> ...


^^^^^ very nice job explaining. You may have used or been exposed to, whatever you're allergic to, for 10 years before you actually experience an allergic reaction to it. Every time you are exposed to it, your body builds up histamines. At some point , with enough exposure , those histamines overreact, causing the reaction. Which is why you give Benadryl (for more mild and acute allergies), it's an antihistamine. So it counteracts the histamines.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

FLKeys said:


> I laugh every time I see this thread pop up in my feed. Will it ever die off?


unfortunately it will not



Matthew Thomas said:


> So if the law told you to stick a sandpaper wrapped ***** up your ass, you would do it?


kinky, sounds hot!


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Here:

If this happens, simply start sneezing and coughing,

Tell the pax you are having an allergic reaction to the dog.....

But you are obligated to take it and you hope the pax understands that the ride could be a bit “bumpy”. 

See if pax cancels. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

I have over 5,000 rides. I've had one service animal. it was a 4 minute ride.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> Here:
> 
> If this happens, simply start sneezing and coughing,
> 
> ...


 my thought is once they get charged the $5 cancellation fee, the story changes and you refused to take them because you have allergies


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

GreenSubaru said:


> The Rational Response: Kindly explain to PAX that you are severely allergic to dogs and cannot safely operate a vehicle carrying a dog. Offer to refund cancellation fees. otherwise just cancel. This will cover the 1/500 incidences 99%.
> 
> My response: SUE





Daisey77 said:


> My response to ^^^^^^ - so I take it you're in the 1% of drivers who opted out of arbitration?


Daisey77 I believe GreenSubaru was saying that as a PAX in that situation his response would be to sue.

It would be worth it, too. Since the law has been in place for over 25 years now, and all businesses are expected to comply, the award could end up being in the $100,000s. And the DRIVER would be on the hook, ultimately. Uber might have to shell out initially, but then they could go after the DRIVER for every dime they can manage to squeeze out, in perpetuity or until the amount is paid off.


----------



## Willzuber (Aug 28, 2015)

Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


You can thank the liberals for this BS. The ADA does serve a valid and good purpose, the problem is, you have politicians framing the legislation who are clueless. By your own health situation, YOU are also under a disability. As such, you cannot be discriminated against either. This creates a real dilemma for the left. How do they deal with you yet accommodate their voter base. It's a tough one but they know that there are far more people walking around with dogs and cats and kangaroos and snakes that are held out as "service animals" and "emotional support animals" than there are people like you.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Willzuber said:


> You can thank the liberals for this BS. The ADA does serve a valid and good purpose, the problem is, you have politicians framing the legislation who are clueless. By your own health situation, YOU are also under a disability. As such, you cannot be discriminated against either. This creates a real dilemma for the left. How do they deal with you yet accommodate their voter base. It's a tough one but they know that there are far more people walking around with dogs and cats and kangaroos and snakes that are held out as "service animals" and "emotional support animals" than there are people like you.


Ummmm... you may want to actually read the law.

And when it was passed, it was passed with an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in both houses and signed into law by Bush, a Republican.

This isn't a "liberal" thing. It's a basic human/civil rights thing.


----------



## RioRoja (Mar 13, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Ummmm... you may want to actually read the law.


or just read *something* jeez!


FLKeys said:


> I laugh every time I see this thread pop up in my feed. Will it ever die off?


It's like the never ending back and forth between the drivers who come up with countless ways to defend their decision to wait in the airport queue for three hours and the rest of us drivers who would never even go to the lot and will never get those who do.


----------



## Leea (Dec 18, 2017)

911 Guy said:


> I understand that very well as an Ex-FF/EMT. How could this involve allergic small children in an U / L scenario? If you are concerned, explain yourself professionally to the rider and cancel w/o charging. Chances are your rider isn't going to want you at risk either since their lives are in your hands.





Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


I'm very sorry the law is written the way it is. I truly wish that is wasn't and I'm also sorry so many people on this blog come off as being so heartless when they respond to you. I recognize that when people are put in a position where they are made to feel powerless it can be devastating. I hope you find a solution to your problem.


----------



## JamesBond008 (Mar 26, 2018)

Joesmith2012 said:


> No I have right too. To earn a honest living and be able to breath, I don't understand why my right to breath and earn a living must be trampled on for someone else, why are you favoring someone else's medical condition over another person


Because if you can't fully perform your job, which you can't, then don't do it.


----------



## Leea (Dec 18, 2017)

JamesBond008 said:


> Because if you can't fully perform your job, which you can't, then don't do it.


She can complain and explain why the law slash policy should be changed or amended for her specific situation and intelligent people can figure out a solution that works for both parties. She does not have to just shut up or quit. She can speak up and possibly shine a light on a problem that is very real for her.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Leea said:


> She can complain and explain why the law slash policy should be changed or amended for her specific situation and intelligent people can figure out a solution that works for both parties. She does not have to just shut up or quit. She can speak up and possibly shine a light on a problem that is very real for her.


She doesn't have a real problem. She contradicted herself in a major way, saying on one hand that her allergy was not life-threatening, and on the other she might go into anaphylactic shock.... she just doesn't want to take the dogs, and has no problem with discriminating against disabled people that rely on them to live their day-to-day lives.

She is just like the ones that try to fake their dogs as SAs... She's the flip side of the coin, and the lawmakers already anticipated her game and stopped it.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

JamesBond008 said:


> Because if you can't fully perform your job, which you can't, then don't do it.


The problem is that an allergic person can fully perform the job except for a very very small exception.


----------



## JamesBond008 (Mar 26, 2018)

Fargle said:


> The problem is that an allergic person can fully perform the job except for a very very small exception.


I think you need to look up the defn of fully!


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

JamesBond008 said:


> I think you need to look up the defn of fully!


You might want to look up the definitions of "exception", "small", and "very".


----------



## jenijazz (Dec 27, 2018)

Remember, you are not an employee. You run a ridesharing business that is contracted by U/L, and as part of that contract you have to abide by their rules. U/L is not your boss and you do not have federally-mandated protections.


----------



## JamesBond008 (Mar 26, 2018)

Fargle said:


> You might want to look up the definitions of "exception", "small", and "very".


F- for your response, D- for effort. 
See me after class.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

JamesBond008 said:


> F- for your response, D- for effort.
> See me after class.


The dean wants to see you about your job description. He also said something about a plonk.


----------



## JamesBond008 (Mar 26, 2018)

To give me an award for my grammer? Sounds very familiar.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

JamesBond008 said:


> To give me an award for my *grammer*? Sounds very familiar.


(emphasis added)

....................but not for your spelling.................................or is it typing......................................?


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

All this discussion for what? Drive for Uber and Lyft and take your chances. If you do get a call for a service dog and will truly be an issue cancel the trip and take your chances. I think if you are polite and explain it to the PAX you have a better shot in your chances of not getting reported. If you get reported and deactivated oh well that is a chance you take. Continue on with the other company as long as you can.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

FLKeys said:


> All this discussion for what? Drive for Uber and Lyft and take your chances. If you do get a call for a service dog and will truly be an issue cancel the trip and take your chances. I think if you are polite and explain it to the PAX you have a better shot in your chances of not getting reported. If you get reported and deactivated oh well that is a chance you take. Continue on with the other company as long as you can.


Heh! Explain and not get reported?!

By the demographic that is the single largest at civil rights lawsuits (the ADA was based on, and meant to clarify some civil rights issues for the disabled) and the most successful at them? And with HUGE judgements handed out and then the rulings handed to the feds for consideration for HUGE fines?

Only way the handler wouldn't report is if they were faking the dog. And even then some will because they spent $60 on the internet to get an "official certification" for their dog and they actually DO think it's legit.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Heh! Explain and not get reported?!
> 
> By the demographic that is the single largest at civil rights lawsuits (the ADA was based on, and meant to clarify some civil rights issues for the disabled) and the most successful at them? And with HUGE judgements handed out and then the rulings handed to the feds for consideration for HUGE fines?
> 
> Only way the handler wouldn't report is if they were faking the dog. And even then some will because they spent $60 on the internet to get an "official certification" for their dog and they actually DO think it's legit.


I get it. Like I said if your going to drive take your chances. I have yet to see a service dog in my 1000+ rides given. I have given PAX with dogs rides on several occasions. All of them immediately contacted me in the app asking if I was okay with them having a dog as sson as I accepted the trip.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

FLKeys said:


> I get it. Like I said if your going to drive take your chances. I have yet to see a service dog in my 1000+ rides given. I have given PAX with dogs rides on several occasions. All of them immediately contacted me in the app asking if I was okay with them having a dog as sson as I accepted the trip.


Oh, I have, too. Several dogs, one in a crate. A cat in a crate and a bearded dragon in a shoebox.

I never had a problem with clean, well-behaved, properly controlled pets of polite people that understood that taking the pet is a courtesy, not anything required. Had one service animal. What I will refuse, every time, is the lying, scamming, insulting, P.O.S. paxhole that tries to run game on this old game-runner.

I'm nice. I'm not an idiot.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Willzuber said:


> You can thank the liberals for this BS.


It does reek of liberalism, but, on this one, you can not do the "Show me on the dolly where the nasty ow' wibewal touched you.". It was indeed, a Democratic controlled Congress that sent this to GHW Bush's desk, but it passed on a 76-8 vote in the Senate and unanimously by acclimation in the House. After the Conference Committee resolved the differences, it passed the Senate 91-6 and the House 377-28. That is a veto-proof majority. The Democrats did not have a veto-proof majority in Congress at the time. GHW Bush did state that he signed it willingly.



Willzuber said:


> The ADA does serve a valid and good purpose, the problem is, you have politicians framing the legislation who are clueless.


This may be more the problem. Much of this legislation that is designed to protect "protected classes" goes too far the other way. There are various motivations for it, but the end result is that someone is still getting harmed.



Willzuber said:


> By your own health situation, YOU are also under a disability. As such, you cannot be discriminated against either. .


Your problem there is that the law's bottom line is that one disability trumps another. Until enough people consider it a problem that needs addressing, and, are loud enough about it, Congress is not going to do anything about it. Currently, there are not enough people who consider it enough of a problem that Congress will take notice. Marry, there are enough who favour one disability's trumping another, as you can read from the comments to this topic alone, let alone every time this arises on these Boards.


----------



## Shawnllians (Oct 12, 2018)

I took a pssenger this week who left a lot ofdog hair on my car left a complaint to Lyft that’s the message they replied .That i was obligated to carry dog , ok but not clean old people mess.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Shawnllians said:


> I took a pssenger this week who left a lot ofdog hair on
> 
> i was obligated to carry dog , ok but not clean old people mess.


Time is money. It requires time (READ: Money) to clean dog hair. In fact, you might have to take money out of your pocket to clean the dog hair. Why should I have to eat the cost of that?


----------



## Kembolicous (May 31, 2016)

Joesmith2012 said:


> You do realize people can die right, allergies are no joke, especially small children


My God, then don't drive for them! If you are not physically able to do the job without medical complications, then don't do it. Lyft and Uber have plenty of drivers to exploit, it's not worth it to them to risk a lawsuit if you refuse dogs. Unless you can get a waiver, because of your "disability", you will have to obey the law or quit(or get deactivated). Good luck.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

BigRedDriver said:


> Agreed. It's a problem that's hard to come to grips with.
> 
> Conflicting rights are always problematic


I don't have snacks in my car. I don;t the car to get messed up. It's not a diner.



Kembolicous said:


> My God, then don't drive for them! If you are not physically able to do the job without medical complications, then don't do it. Lyft and Uber have plenty of drivers to exploit, it's not worth it to them to risk a lawsuit if you refuse dogs. Unless you can get a waiver, because of your "disability", you will have to obey the law or quit(or get deactivated). Good luck.


Keep driving. It's what you like to do. If they have a dog, politely tell them your situation. They'll get it. Good luck but don't stop driving if you don't want to. If you crash you can sue and own UBER. A company *you don't work for* can't make you do anything that will harm your health. You can drive by see if they have a dog and cancel if they do. I don't have an UBER sign was never given one so if I see a dog (hasn't happened yet) i'll hit cancel if it's not in a carrier and keep driving.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Fargle said:


> Well, that would be a complication. Has anyone realistically tried to revise or revisit these laws? Then again, Uber/Lyft could just do it first and wait for the legal fallout, much like how they got started.


The ADA gets revisited fairly regularly, and even gets revised from time to time (2013 being the last time I'm aware of), but most notably in 2010, where it got a large revision restricting service animals to dogs and mini horses (as it was getting stupid with people claiming service rats and kangaroos and such). The most recent efforts (which don't seem to be going anywhere) are a push to get some kind of an actual legit ID system going, even on a voluntary basis (like most of Canada has). It doesn't seem likely to happen though, at least thus far. There is no serious effort to remove the restrictions that allergies and fear of dogs be removed (if anything, that's one of the few things everyone seems to agree on).

The reasoning is simple. Of the 15% of people who are allergic to dogs at all, less than 1% have a "severe" allergy (severe, meaning affects their breathing to a dangerous degree, possible anaphylaxis, etc). Anyone with that severe of an allergy would be unable to drive because of hair simply carried by pet owners too (thus disabled). The rest of them have a varying range of irritation, but nothing threatening. On the other hand, you have 20% of people who are disabled, and about 2% of them currently use real service dogs (the fakes should just hang themselves and be done with it), with that number growing as more tasks are being trained for. Therefore, the odds of a person who is actually allergic (but not to the point of being disabled, and still able to drive) being matched with someone with a service dog is pretty darn slim to begin with. On top of that, people who can't function without their service dog vs someone with an allergy having to take a Claritin... well apply a little logic and it's easy to see why allergies are not a valid reason to refuse.

Besides, *I* am allergic to dogs (not "severe", to the point of being disabled, thankfully, or I'd have a real problem), and I have to be with one 24/7/365. I take my Claritin daily, and get my allergy shots every 2 weeks. If I can deal with it, frankly, so can anyone else (who isn't actually disabled by it, anyway). Everyone wants to have the debate about it, but until you actually need a service dog, especially to the point where it's better to deal with the allergies than not have one with you, you simply can't understand that side of it. These allergy fakers are worse than the service dog fakers.

One thing that is being hashed out a bit, is the ACAA and emotional support animals. There is a big push (I'm not sure if it's big enough frankly, but in light of recent issues, maybe it will be) to remove ESAs from the ACAA completely and bring it more in line with the ADA. ESAs no longer allowed to fly would likely equal less people trying to take their ESAs in Uber/Lyft to the airport. Obviously it probably won't stop all the fake service dog stuff, but at least it would close down one more path they tend to use. One can only hope.


----------

