# Uber must face lawsuit claiming bias against blind riders



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

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/20/us-uber-blind-lawsuit-idUSKBN0NB1W020150420

Uber Technologies Inc must defend against a lawsuit accusing the popular ride-sharing service of discriminating against blind people by refusing to transport guide dogs, a federal judge ruled.


----------



## djino (Mar 15, 2015)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ith-service-animals-uber-refuses-to-serve-us/

*Blind users with service animals: Uber refuses to serve us*
*Company is accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.*

by Cyrus Farivar - Apr 21, 2015 9:11am EDT









A federal judge in San Francisco has allowed a civil lawsuit filed against Uber by an advocacy group for the blind to proceed.

The case was initially filed in September 2014 by the National Federation of the Blind of California and one individual plaintiff, who alleged that the quasi-taxi company is in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), along with other state disabilities laws.

Uber had initially filed to have the case dismissed, but thejudge's ruling last Friday means the case will proceed.

According to the initial civil complaint, UberX drivers routinely refused to serve blind riders who travel with service animals:

Further, UberX drivers across the United States are likewise refusing to transport blind individuals, including identified UberX drivers who repeatedly denied rides to one blind woman on twelve separate occasions, charged blind riders cancellation fees, and abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather, all because of guide dogs.

In total, Plaintiffs are aware of more than thirty instances where drivers of UberX vehicles refused to transport blind individuals with service animals. UberX drivers that refused to transport these blind individuals did so after they initially agreed to transport the riders. The UberX drivers denied the requested transportation service after the drivers had arrived and discovered that the riders used service animals.

In addition, some UberX drivers seriously mishandle guide dogs or harass blind customers with guide dogs even when they do not outright deny the provision of taxi service. For example, Leena Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver forced Ms. Dawes' guide dog into the closed trunk of the UberX sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. When Ms. Dawes realized where the driver had placed her dog, she pleaded with the driver to pull over so that she could retrieve her dog from the trunk, but the driver refused her request. Other blind customers with guide dogs have been yelled at by Uber drivers who are hostile toward their guide dogs.

In its motion to dismiss, Uber argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that as a private company, it is not bound by the provisions of the ADA-an argument that United States Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins found did not hold water.

The plaintiffs want Uber to be compelled to take passengers with service animals, to declare that Uber was engaging in discriminatory behavior, and to award monetary damages and attorney's fees.

The case is set to go to a management conference in San Francisco on in early June 2015.

Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Monday night.


----------



## limepro (Mar 7, 2015)

You do not have to let anyone in your personal vehicle, the right thing to do would the rider to call once the request is made and ensure it won't be a problem with the driver.


----------



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

limepro said:


> You do not have to let anyone in your personal vehicle, the right thing to do would the rider to call once the request is made and ensure it won't be a problem with the driver.


The problem with that sentiment is, once you start charging money for transportation, your personal vehicle becomes a commercial vehicle whether you like it or not.

If you don't want service animals in your "personal vehicle", you'll have to stop offering to drive people around for money.

If you own a restaurant you can't exclude service animals, but you can keep them out of the dining room of your house.

Once you start doing stuff for money, the rules change.,


----------



## limepro (Mar 7, 2015)

Problem with that it is a pay on demand service, until the trip has started it isn't a for hire vehicle or we could do street hails. Until that point whether logged in or not it is a personal vehicle because until I hit start trip I am able to do whatever I want in the vehicle.


----------



## DrJeecheroo (Feb 12, 2015)

I wonder if much of that so-called 40 ka-zillion smackeroos will be squandered in paying legal fees.


----------



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

limepro said:


> Problem with that it is a pay on demand service, until the trip has started it isn't a for hire vehicle or we could do street hails. Until that point whether logged in or not it is a personal vehicle because until I hit start trip I am able to do whatever I want in the vehicle.


If you think you're not operating a commercial vehicle until you have a paying passenger in your car, we'll have to agree to disagree then.

I maintain that as soon as you turn on your app and put yourself up for hire, you're a commercial vehicle and therefore subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act. I'm pretty sure the courts are going to agree with me.


----------



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

DrJeecheroo said:


> I wonder if much of that so-called 40 ka-zillion smackeroos will be squandered in paying legal fees.


It's going to cost them a lot, and they will lose every case. The Federal government isn't the same as a state legislature.



> The U.S. government also files lawsuits against businesses, among other enforcement measures. In August, for instance, the Justice Department proposed new rules that would require small movie theaters to provide closed captioning and audio descriptions of films.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/disabled-access-new-legal-push-1413411545


----------



## victorious52 (Mar 20, 2015)

stupid driver should be fined and drained of everything dear to him/her service dogs are the best trained animals on the planet! better than some drunks for sure!


----------



## ginseng41 (Nov 30, 2014)

If they successfully sue uber and not the drivers, wouldn't that make us employees and not independent contractors? I can't see any way uber could be held responsible for what an independent contractor does. Now the driver could easily be sued if we're independent contractors in the eyes of the court.


----------



## SgtMurphy (Apr 28, 2014)

If you would even think of refusing guide dogs, or discriminating against the blind, let alone put a guide dog in a ****ing trunk, you deserve to be water boarded.
How ****ing dare you *****es.


----------



## Kalee (Feb 18, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> If you think you're not operating a commercial vehicle until you have a paying passenger in your car, we'll have to agree to disagree then.
> 
> I maintain that as soon as you turn on your app and put yourself up for hire, you're a commercial vehicle and therefore subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act. I'm pretty sure the courts are going to agree with me.


I agree, 100%


----------



## thehappytypist (Oct 9, 2014)

ginseng41 said:


> If they successfully sue uber and not the drivers, wouldn't that make us employees and not independent contractors? I can't see any way uber could be held responsible for what an independent contractor does. Now the driver could easily be sued if we're independent contractors in the eyes of the court.


That's the answer I'm waiting for. Uber instantly and permanently deactivates any driver who refuses a service animal.


----------



## ginseng41 (Nov 30, 2014)

Which would make us employees. I think this might be a win win for us.


----------



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

thehappytypist said:


> That's the answer I'm waiting for. Uber instantly and permanently deactivates any driver who refuses a service animal.


Uber's responsibility goes a little farther than that. They must, before contracting with a driver, advise that driver of his/her responsibilities under the ADA, and make sure the IC agrees to follow the law.

Which means that Limepro, and other drivers who refuse service animals, won't be driving for Uber. Or anybody else for that matter.


----------



## BubbaUber (Apr 23, 2015)

Passenger: Where's my dog?
Driver: He's right next to you or behind you, or in the trunk!

Who are theses people?

I carry a big tape lint brush and a beach towel. just for reasons like these.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

SgtMurphy said:


> If you would even think of refusing guide dogs, or discriminating against the blind, let alone put a guide dog in a ****ing trunk, you deserve to be water boarded.
> How ****ing dare you *****es.


 now now, I don't think most uber drivers are cruel enough to put a dog in the trunk. Now the mafia that's a different story all together.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

SgtMurphy said:


> If you would even think of refusing guide dogs, or discriminating against the blind, let alone put a guide dog in a ****ing trunk, you deserve to be water boarded.
> How ****ing dare you *****es.


Exactly. Beyond the fact that you absolutely will not win any case in court in regards to this (allergies do no qualify) if you do this you are a miserable excuse for a human being and should not under any circumstances be driving anyone around for hire.

There are other types of service animals of course but just for kicks put on a blindfold for a day and "see" just how much effort it takes to do everyday tasks. Then imagine you're waiting on the sidewalk with your dog and your taxi or uber never comes. Or it comes and then cancels on arrival.

Like you don't have enough shit to deal with ALREADY?

This has been an issue for years with taxis. Now uber drivers are just perpetuating the problem.

You can get a dog seat cover for 12 bucks on amazon. Buy that and a lint roller instead of ****ing water for assholes. The blind or otherwise disabled pax will be much more appreciative.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Lidman said:


> now now, I don't think most uber drivers are cruel enough to put a dog in the trunk. Now the mafia that's a different story all together.


That already HAPPENED.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

What already happened an uber driver did that. I must have missed that article. It's hard to keep with all the uber news.


----------



## FlDriver (Oct 16, 2015)

I don't see why this is a suit against Uber, unless it was telling drivers not to accept service animals.

How would Uber even know an animal was involved unless the customer complained?


----------

