# Lyft -------- ADA -------- Service Animals



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.

They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.

So what am I missing?

If that what Lyft believes than why do they terminate drivers that refuse to allow service dogs?

Service Animals are defined by the ADA as are responsibilities surrounding them. AS an Independent Contractor I doubt more than a few accounts rise to the level of employing 15 or more people so they would have no responsibility.

So somebody please explain again why a LYFT driver has to take a passenger with a service dog?


----------



## Pax Collector (Feb 18, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> So somebody please explain again why a LYFT driver has to take a passenger with a service dog


Because it's the law.



JustTreatMeFair said:


> If that what Lyft believes than why do they terminate drivers that refuse to allow service dogs?


They're not terminating. They're simply ending a contract.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.
> 
> They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.
> 
> ...


If Lyft were to "allow" drivers to continue driving after they found out that driver was violating the ADA, Lyft would be complicit in that violation. In having a firm no-tolerance policy, they remove themselves from any penalties or judgements that would otherwise be levied against them, and lay them right at the driver's door.

Which is exactly where they would belong, of course.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

How is the driver subject to the ADA?


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> How is the driver subject to the ADA?


Read up on "public accommodation."


----------



## Pax Collector (Feb 18, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> How is the driver subject to the ADA?


Same way other establishments that provide service to the general public are.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Coachman said:


> Read up on "public accommodation."


OK. Did that. No where can I find a personal vehicle listed in any category of public accommodations. Perhaps if someone is UBERing in an RV they have listed on Air B&B but that seems like a reach.

So... Back to the question

LYFT is arguing that they are NOT a transportation Company and thereby cannot be held accountable requirements of the ADA. LYFT has always taken the stance that a Driver is NOT an employee but an independent contractor. The typical Driver/Independent Contractor does not have 15 employees so....

a) Why does a Driver/IC have to accommodate a Service Animal?

b) Why would LYFT feel the need to terminate drivers that do not?

Seems like they are flopping back and forth on the issue which certainly weakens their position.

I think it would make a good legal argument that by enforcing the ADA's laws regarding Service Animals that they acknowledge their responsibility and undermine their case.

But their position regarding what a Driver is to them seems to relieve Drivers of the need to take a Service Animal into their car.


----------



## Pax Collector (Feb 18, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> OK. Did that. No where can I find a personal vehicle listed in any category of public accommodations. Perhaps if someone is UBERing in an RV they have listed on Air B&B but that seems like a reach.
> 
> So... Back to the question
> 
> ...


One thing I can take away from your argument is that Lyft will try and mislead lawmakers they aren't a transportation company so they can skirt laws and regulations. I agree with that. The fact is Lyft is indeed a transportation company. This has nothing to do with service animals, however. They have a contractor and contractee relationship with you that would open them to huge liabilities should they overlook your refusal to accommodate riders with disabilities. As a result of that, they'll terminate their contract with you.

You, as the independent contractor, are still liable for service animal issues. You could personally be sued for refusing service to someone with a legitimate service animal. You being a Lyft contractor or employee is irrelevant at that point.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Pax Collector said:


> Same way other establishments that provide service to the general public are.


It would seem that the ADA does a fairly decent job of defining the establishments under their purview and a driver and his car does not fall into any of the listed categories I can find.

Instead of regurgitating what so many have "said" can anyone post something clarifying this from the ADA.

I think the premise all along has been that LYFT is a transportation company and as such they are subject to ADA requirements relating TO transportation. As such contractors they entered into agreements with would have to adhere to the ADA. This is a position LYFT is currently arguing against.

If that is their belief they should have zero interest in drivers refusing rides to service animals.


----------



## Pax Collector (Feb 18, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> It would seem that the ADA does a fairly decent job of defining the establishments under their purview and a driver and his car does not fall into any of the listed categories I can find.
> 
> Instead of regurgitating what so many have "said" can anyone post something clarifying this from the ADA.
> 
> ...


Sigh..... You just don't get it. Best of luck on your quest.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> It would seem that the ADA does a fairly decent job of defining the establishments under their purview and a driver and his car does not fall into any of the listed categories I can find.
> 
> Instead of regurgitating what so many have "said" can anyone post something clarifying this from the ADA.
> 
> ...


Beating your head against brick wall.



Pax Collector said:


> Sigh..... You just don't get it. Best of luck on your quest.


Draggy missed this one. It's right up his alley.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

On June 28, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a decision by the New York City district court that mandated all new city taxis be wheelchair accessible. Several wheelchair users and advocates for the disabled had filed charges against Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) - the licencing body of New York City taxis - for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to ensure that all taxis are accessible. General Counsel for the United Spinal Association equated this decision to the Jim Crow laws of the South.

In this case, taxis are considered the tool, not the service provider. They are not a place of public accommodation like many disabled rights advocates argue that taxis are. The federal appeals court ruled that the TLC could not be held accountable for enforcing accessibility because taxis are a personal belonging.

As a tool to accomplish transportation, taxis do not fall under the category of the obstacle to receiving services. *But taxicabs being a tool does not exempt taxi drivers from following the ADA. The ADA Handbook specifies that taxi drivers still must comply with the ADA even if the drivers are not technically employees of a cab company. Complying with the ADA means places may not discriminate against people with disabilities and may not deny full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services afforded by the place.

Under 49 C.F.R. § 37.29 of the ADA, discrimination includes refusing to provide services to disabled people who can use taxis, refusing to assist with the stowing of mobility devices, and charging higher fares to people with disabilities or for storing their equipment.*

https://www.mic.com/articles/10560/...mpliance-with-americans-with-disabilities-act


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> So somebody please explain again why a LYFT driver has to take a passenger with a service dog?


Honestly, what's the issue? I don't mind dogs in general, they're my best pax. I'd take a dog over a kid any day.

And if it's a legitimate service animal, as @Pax Collector said, it's the law.

Did you have a bad experience? Get deactivated for refusing?


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

Benjamin M said:


> Honestly, what's the issue? I don't mind dogs in general, they're my best pax. I'd take a dog over a kid any day.
> 
> And if it's a legitimate service animal, as @Pax Collector said, it's the law.
> 
> Did you have a bad experience? Get deactivated for refusing?


You can go now.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

IR12 said:


> You can go now.


Excuse me? ? So you're in favor of not taking legitimate service animals?! Okie, enjoy being deactivated..


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Coachman said:


> On June 28, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a decision by the New York City district court that mandated all new city taxis be wheelchair accessible.
> Taxis
> 
> Taxis
> ...


Most posted opinions are that UBER/LYFT vehicles are NOT Taxis. I think everyone is too busy trying to shove it into a category to realize new technology and businesses do not always FIT in an established category.

Unless you have some other court ruling that defines what we are I don't think your case is valid.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Most posted opinions are that UBER/LYFT vehicles are NOT Taxis. I think everyone is too busy trying to shove it into a category to realize new technology and businesses do not always FIT in an established category.
> 
> Unless you have some other court ruling that defines what we are I don't think your case is valid.


We all signed the same contract as independent contractors for Uber/Lyft. Both require us to accommodate service animals. It's that simple.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Benjamin M said:


> Honestly, what's the issue? I don't mind dogs in general, they're my best pax. I'd take a dog over a kid any day.
> 
> And if it's a legitimate service animal, as @Pax Collector said, it's the law.
> 
> Did you have a bad experience? Get deactivated for refusing?


I love dogs as well and never say No to transporting them. Never a bad experience or deactivated regarding the issue.

I find it ludicrous that LYFT s fighting to show they are not bound by ADA laws yet enforcing them where their drivers are concerned.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

We're taking about highly trained animals that serve a critical role for their owners. Some provide eyes, others help vets with PTSD, help monitor blood sugar changes, are alert to a pending seizure, etc. 

The worst case, some hairs on the seats. That's why we vacuum. What's the big deal? 

Hopefully you never need a service animal.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Most posted opinions are that UBER/LYFT vehicles are NOT Taxis. I think everyone is too busy trying to shove it into a category to realize new technology and businesses do not always FIT in an established category.
> 
> Unless you have some other court ruling that defines what we are I don't think your case is valid.


Uber and Lyft need to listen to you. Their expert lawyers obviously don't know what they're doing.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I love dogs as well and never say No to transporting them. Never a bad experience or deactivated regarding the issue.
> 
> I find it ludicrous that LYFT s fighting to show they are not bound by ADA laws yet enforcing them where their drivers are concerned.


Again, both have policies stating that we must accept service animals. Lyft has sent two notices recently regarding this policy. So what's the issue?


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Lyft quotes ADA requirements as a reason for a policy and requires drivers to do something while arguing they are not subject to the ADA requirements.

You don't see the hypocrisy in that?


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft quotes ADA requirements as a reason for a policy and requires drivers to do something while arguing they are not subject to the ADA requirements.
> 
> You don't see the hypocrisy in that?


Yeah, I'm totally lost. Lyft and Uber have the requirement that we transport passengers with service animals. As independent contractors, we must follow the contract or risk being deactivated. It's pretty simple.

Maybe expand on what you're saying? Because all I know is that we signed on the dotted line for the terms of service. Beyond that, no idea what your issue is - even stating that you do not mind transporting dogs.

Can you please cite the contradiction you are talking about somewhere? Legitimate sources?


----------



## itendstonight (Feb 10, 2019)

No one is against well trained service dogs. We are against all the fakies!


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

itendstonight said:


> No one is against well trained service dogs. We are against all the fakies!


Okay, fair enough. But how do you propose telling the difference?

I had someone recently say that their tiny dog on a flexible leash was a "service animal". It was obvious that this wasn't the case. But I accepted the trip anyway because I love dogs. And I was tipped well.

If you roll up to find a blind man with a dog with a vest, harness system, and sitting or laying down - that's a service animal. Learn how to differentiate. And if you really want to push it, you risk deactivation.


----------



## Phantomshark (Jan 21, 2018)

This might be the one time ever I have to side with Lyft. They are requiring us to follow the law and accept service animals. If we don't, they have to let us go or be complicit in our illegal activity. At the same time, they are fighting to change the law as regards us, so we no longer have to accept service animals. I see no conflict in this case.

If they can get the law changed, they will probably still tell.us to take the ride if its a real service animal but allow us to weed out fakers.


----------



## itendstonight (Feb 10, 2019)

Benjamin M said:


> Okay, fair enough. But how do you propose telling the difference?
> 
> I had someone recently say that their tiny dog on a flexible leash was a "service animal". It was obvious that this wasn't the case. But I accepted the trip anyway because I love dogs. And I was tipped well.
> 
> If you roll up to find a blind man with a dog with a vest, harness system, and sitting or laying down - that's a service animal. Learn how to differentiate. And if you really want to push it, you risk deactivation.


I deal with service animals a lot on the bus. It is plainly obvious which service dogs are legit and which are literally pets. I don't say anything cus I don't want to deal with the hassle of proving they are fake. I'm waiting for an untrained dog to rip a little girl's face off like at an airport and then maybe there will be a crackdown.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Phantomshark said:


> This might be the one time ever I have to side with Lyft. They are requiring us to follow the law and accept service animals.


Please. Post the "law" they are trying to get us to follow.

https://www.politico.com/states/new...ith-disabilities-act-in-federal-court-1002249
Lyft is fighting lawsuits claiming THEY are not subject to the ADA.

Drivers of Ride Share vehicles do not fall under accomodations and certainly do not employ 15 or more people and NO ONE can post the LAW that states we are required to carry service animals.

Read through that lawsuit. basically one of their defenses is "Look... we require the drivers to do it under OUR Terms of Service so that should let US (LYFT) off the hook on these cases.

THEY are the ones getting sued instead of drivers because THEY are perceived to be in the transportation business employing 15 or more people.

Independent Contractors are not "Public Transportation" like a Taxi. None of us can approach the public or accept a hailed ride from the general public the way a Taxi can. We ONLY provide rides under contracts sent to us by the Intermediate Company that is claiming very loudly in Federal Court that THEY are not required to be ADA compliant.

Consider for a moment that LYFT WINS their argument and is found to NOT be required to be ADA compliant. In their misguided rage passengers with service dogs would be filing their suits directly against drivers, not the LYFT's and UBERS.

JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE BLINDLY ACCEPTED WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN FED DOES NOT MEAN QUOTING THE LINE GIVEN MAKES IT RIGHT.

I can find no "LAW" that requires an independent a single independent driver using a personal vehicle to comply with the ADA.

INDEPENDANCE is something people desire so as to NOT HAVE to blindly follow what others say.

I am sure many here believe they should have the right to make that choice.

So Please. Post the "law" they are trying to get us to follow and explain how it applies to us as Independent Contractors.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.
> 
> They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.
> 
> ...


From a legal point of view, they see the best case scenario as putting compliance solely on the shoulders of the drivers. Worst case, they lose and things stay the same.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> OK. Did that. No where can I find a personal vehicle listed in any category of public accommodations. Perhaps if someone is UBERing in an RV they have listed on Air B&B but that seems like a reach.
> 
> So... Back to the question
> 
> ...


Lyft isnt a transportation company. They are a booking company. You provide the transportation service. You are responsible for adhering to ADA laws. Lyft removed your ability to access their booking service if you are violating federal law, to cover their ass.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Benjamin M said:


> Yeah, I'm totally lost. Lyft and Uber have the requirement that we transport passengers with service animals. As independent contractors, we must follow the contract or risk being deactivated. It's pretty simple.


Being LOST is better than being blind. It appears from Lyft's recent legal defense that the requirement for us to drive passengers with service animals is to be able to say that THEY go farther than the Federal Govt in requiring the Independent Contractors they provide bookings to transport service animals. THAT is part of their defense to why THEY do not have to comply.

Outside of the TOS I still have not seen anything that requires independent contractors to adhere to regulations created under the ADA.

basically it is a LYFT requirement. Not a "LAW" as so many keep harping.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Being LOST is better than being blind. It appears from Lyft's recent legal defense that the requirement for us to drive passengers with service animals is to be able to say that THEY go farther than the Federal Govt in requiring the Independent Contractors they provide bookings to transport service animals. THAT is part of their defense to why THEY do not have to comply.
> 
> Outside of the TOS I still have not seen anything that requires independent contractors to adhere to regulations created under the ADA.
> 
> basically it is a LYFT requirement. Not a "LAW" as so many keep harping.


Yeah can't quite understand the anger here. Just need something to rant about? There are way better topics.

I can't remember, were you deactivated for refusing a service animal?


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> From a legal point of view, they see the best case scenario as putting compliance solely on the shoulders of the drivers.


Yet, LEGALLY, Drivers do not seem to be required to comply.

At least no one has been able to produce the law or section of the law that we fall under.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

Benjamin M said:


> highly trained animals that serve a critical role


I'm positive 90% are not legit service animals. I don't mind taking pets so it's not an issue for me. But I hate being lied to!

When a fellow driver who does mind taking pets gets hacked based upon a lie, it bothers me! Some nimrod wants to take their little buddy everywhere they go, so they call it a service animal. It's not cool!

I hate liars. Call it a flaw.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

kc ub'ing! said:


> I'm positive 90% are not legit service animals. I don't mind taking pets so it's not an issue for me. But I hate being lied to!
> 
> When a fellow driver who does mind taking pets gets hacked based upon a lie, it bothers me! Some nimrod wants to take their little buddy everywhere they go, so they call it a service animal. It's not cool!
> 
> I hate liars. Call it a flaw.


As I have mentioned, look for the indicators of a legit service animal.

It does suck that we can't ask for proof.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Benjamin M said:


> Yeah can't quite understand the anger here. Just need something to rant about? There are way better topics.
> 
> I can't remember, were you deactivated for refusing a service animal?


I am not angry.
I am active on 3 platforms here in Austin.
I have not been deactivated from any platform for any violation of Service Animal policies.
I have transported every passenger with a Service Animal I have encountered.

What I want though is for it to be MY decision without repercussion from the company booking the ride to do so. I think a lot of people want that right.

We ALL know that people abuse this law and expect us to transport their animals. The leverage currently is that we are required to by TOS and everyone fears deactivation for not complying. Remove that fear and many will choose to not transport what they perceive as fake requests or not transport them at all as a personal choice.

As an "Independent Contractor" don't you want the freedom of choice?



kc ub'ing! said:


> I'm positive 90% are not legit service animals. I don't mind taking pets so it's not an issue for me. But I hate being lied to!
> 
> When a fellow driver who does mind taking pets gets hacked based upon a lie, it bothers me! Some nimrod wants to take their little buddy everywhere they go, so they call it a service animal. It's not cool!
> 
> I hate liars. Call it a flaw.


This guy gets it. IF the requirement was NOT in the TOS his buddy does not get deactivated.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> As an "Independent Contractor" don't you want the freedom of choice?


As an independent contractor I personally couldn't care less. And I must obey the policies set forth in the contract if I wish to continue having access to the platforms.

https://adata.org/faq/how-can-i-tell-if-animal-really-service-animal-and-not-just-pet


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> Lyft isnt a transportation company. They are a booking company. You provide the transportation service. You are responsible for adhering to ADA laws. Lyft removed your ability to access their booking service if you are violating federal law, to cover their ass.


Exactly WHICH Federal Law is being violated? The ADA does not seem to apply to Independent Contractors providing a ride share.

It seems there are independant transportation companies that arrange rides for handicapped people through Uber and Lyft and when doing so a request comes with a message that the rider may need assistance getting in and out of the vehicle and storing their wheel chair / walker etc. If unable to do so the driver should reply and the trip gets canceled.

THAT seems far more like a violation of ADA than anything discussed about the service dogs but these booking companies are not fighting or complaining to UBER/LYFT. They just cancel and move on to the next driver.

IF we were truly required to be ADA compliant that ride request would not carry the option of declining with no repercussion.

Driver doesn't want to transport a Service Animal. DEACTIVATE HIM! CRUCIFY HIM in the forums.

Driver doesn't want to help a lady from her wheel chair into the back seat and stow the chair in his trunk? Oh. OK. We'll get a different driver.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

Benjamin M said:


> look for the indicators of a legit service animal.


Nope! Best course, hush and take the pet. If not, rider will complain, "driver refused my *SERVICE ANIMAL*!" You will be deactivated. Pax word is only litmus test. Both U/L have been clear on this.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

kc ub'ing! said:


> Nope! Best course, hush and take the pet. If not, rider will complain, "driver refused my *SERVICE ANIMAL*!" You will be deactivated. Pax word is only litmus test. Both U/L have been clear on this.


As I just said, I really don't care.

Fortunately they've been trying to crack down on fake service animals for years.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...new-laws-crack-down-fake-service-dogs-n871541


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.
> 
> They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.
> 
> ...


For the record I am not against transporting dogs regardless of them being service animals or not.

I get what you are saying. Lyft claims they are not a transportation company so they should no be sued for drivers not following ADA laws as they are not employees they are independent contractors.

Your saying as an independent contractor no where in the ADA laws does it say you as a person with under 15 employees needs to comply with the ADA laws.

So your argument is why does Lyft deactivate driver for not allowing service animals when they are not bound by the ADA laws as you understand them.

Simply put Lyft can set policies for drivers to follow. Lyft's policy is not you must be ADA compliant, their policy is you must take service animals or they will no longer use you as an independent contractor.

Does a driver break the ADA law by not taking service animals? I have no idea and don't really care. But yes I see your point that the ADA laws as you read them does not say drivers must be compliant. Has any driver ever been charged with breaking ADA laws for refusing a service animal?



Benjamin M said:


> As I just said, I really don't care.
> 
> Fortunately they've been trying to crack down on fake service animals for years.
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...new-laws-crack-down-fake-service-dogs-n871541


I can't read the article, what states are cracking down?


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

FLKeys said:


> For the record I am not against transporting dogs regardless of them being service animals or not.
> 
> I get what you are saying. Lyft claims they are not a transportation company so they should no be sued for drivers not following ADA laws as they are not employees they are independent contractors.
> 
> ...


Move over, Rover. Your time in the grocery store, the movie theater and pizza parlor is running out.

Twenty-one states have in recent months mounted a major crackdown down on people who falsely claim their pets as service and support animals so they can bring them into restaurants, theaters and other public places where Fido and Fluffy aren't typically allowed - and the movement has picked up speed in the last few weeks.

Last month, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, signed into law a bill making it illegal for people to misrepresent their pets as service animals, under which pet-loving perps are subject to a $100 fine and a misdemeanor charge. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed a nearly identical bill, under which those who "fraudulently misrepresent" service animals can be fined $250.

"I couldn't go into a store or an airport or even an office without seeing some disorderly four-legged creature dragging its owner around, wearing a vest that said 'service animal,'" Republican Arizona state Sen. John Kavanagh, who sponsored the Arizona bill, told NBC News. "I would see people in the supermarkets with animals in the shopping cart or walking around sniffing all the food."

Exactly how big a problem the use of fake service animals isn't clear. No organization keeps records of illegitimate service animals. But people who work in the service, hospitality and entertainment industries have seen it all.

Andrew Hendrickson, a northern Vermont resident who volunteers regularly at a local performance venue, has seen it all too often.

"We've had dogs bark through the whole show, sit in the middle of the aisle," said Hendrickson, who added that he once even saw one "hump the legs of a stranger."

The venue allows people to enter with animals they say are for service or support.

"It's kind of hard to question though," he said. "We have very little grounds on which to challenge a patron who claims the animal as a support."

Animal and legal experts say that the explosion of reported problems is due to several factors.

There is no uniform nationwide certification or registration process for legitimate service animals - which receive up to several years of specialized training - making it easy for people to scam a non-existent system. And the easy availability online of "service dog" harnesses and vests is all too tempting for animal-owners who want company running errands and going out.

Most prominent, however, is that a new generation of animal-lovers are seeking notes from their doctors declaring that their pet helps soothe anxiety or ease depression and that the animals should be deemed "support animals." Support animals, however, don't qualify as service animals, according to the Americans with Disabilities Act - the governing law of all service animals, according to experts.

Under the ADA, only dogs can be considered service animals - with an exception for miniature horses.

Business owners, according to the federal law, can only ask two questions of anyone who says they have a service dog.

"They can ask only if it is a service animal, and what is it trained to do," explained David Favre, a law professor at Michigan State University's College of Law, whose expertise is animal law. They cannot ask for documentation and they cannot ask about the disability, under the law, Favre said.

That makes abuses difficult to enforce.

Full article - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna871541


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

Benjamin M said:


> As I just said, I really don't care


Then you shouldn't offer ill thought out advice. My thoughtful counsel may be of use to other readers who might care.


----------



## Benjamin M (Jul 17, 2018)

kc ub'ing! said:


> Then you shouldn't offer ill thought out advice. My thoughtful counsel may be of use to other readers who might care.


I meant that I don't care about dogs in my car. Fact is that it's a policy that we must follow, we agreed to it.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

kc ub'ing! said:


> I'm positive 90% are not legit service animals. I don't mind taking pets so it's not an issue for me. But I hate being lied to!
> 
> When a fellow driver who does mind taking pets gets hacked based upon a lie, it bothers me! Some nimrod wants to take their little buddy everywhere they go, so they call it a service animal. It's not cool!
> 
> I hate liars. Call it a flaw.


One of the reasons I'm not driving today is well stated here as an example.

When a driver is deactivated for this, and several other reasons, the driver needs to have access to the accusers information. If fired for failing to take a service animal, the driver should have a way to prove his innocence in the face of fraudulent accusations.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I am not angry.
> I am active on 3 platforms here in Austin.
> I have not been deactivated from any platform for any violation of Service Animal policies.
> I have transported every passenger with a Service Animal I have encountered.
> ...


Uber was sued by the Federation of the Blind in Federal Court. They settled out of court to avoid further loses.

You are free to challenge ADA law on your own dime, but Uber is done fighting it.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Ok. Not sure where you get that anyone is talking about wanting Uber to do anything but happy you got that off your chest


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Most posted opinions are that UBER/LYFT vehicles are NOT Taxis. I think everyone is too busy trying to shove it into a category to realize new technology and businesses do not always FIT in an established category.
> 
> Unless you have some other court ruling that defines what we are I don't think your case is valid.


Do you have a court ruling saying that U/L drivers are different than taxi drivers?


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> OK. Did that. No where can I find a personal vehicle listed in any category of public accommodations. Perhaps if someone is UBERing in an RV they have listed on Air B&B but that seems like a reach.
> 
> So... Back to the question
> 
> ...


If you don't understand that when you are on the app you are a business person and you car is being used for commercial purposes, I don't even know where to begin...



JustTreatMeFair said:


> Please. Post the "law" they are trying to get us to follow.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/states/new...ith-disabilities-act-in-federal-court-1002249
> Lyft is fighting lawsuits claiming THEY are not subject to the ADA.
> ...


 you are confusing the Ada as it pertains to employees with your 15 employee statement, versus the Ada as it pertains to accommodating customers and the General Public. You have to allow your packs to bring their legitimate service animals into your car. Refuse to do so at your own peril. If you think you do not have enough for them to go after you, think again. That disabled person and the federal government will both be so far up your rear end, you will be using your ears to relieve yourself.

the disabled is the demographic that has the single strongest Lobby in Washington and in each state capitol in this country. they have more say then even the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, and Koch brothers. Don't fool yourself.

Learn how the Ada pertains specifically to service animals, and learn how a service animal is trained to be able to weed out fakes. it's really not that difficult.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft quotes ADA requirements as a reason for a policy and requires drivers to do something while arguing they are not subject to the ADA requirements.
> 
> You don't see the hypocrisy in that?


I do see the hypocrisy. But a corporation isn't concerned with that and feels no guilt. They have a loss prevention department who's job it is to prevent any monetary losses due to law suits. I think they are just covering all bases by putting it in the TOS as well as claiming they are not responsible themselves under the law. The conflict doesn't matter to them. All that matters is that they don't lose any money.

I think you may be asking the wrong crowd. We are not lawyers. And most people don't get the essence of the law. Have you ever watched Judge Judy and those kind of shows? Even when people lose, they still think they are right, and they just think the Judge got it wrong. They seem to think that because they didn't intend to break the law, therefore they actually didn't break the law.

I think there is a lot of grey area in rideshare, and the laws haven't been fully tested in actual cases. Therefore there are not an established set of precedents. I think lift knows this and is just covering all bases.

As far as your question about where does it say that we have to take service animals in our private cars? I think that's a dam good question. I completely support your quest for that answer. I have not fully read the ADA law, and I'm not a lawyer so I don't think I would be able to properly interpret it. In fact I think even a lawyers interpretation would be nothing more than an opinion. Until it's tested in a case, it's just an opinion. It's just advice. I don't think that the drivers role as independent contractor has been fully tested or explored. And Lyft knows that too.

I don't think it's fair that no documentation is required to prove a service animal. At least a medallion on the collar. I would certainly like to hear the legal argument for why that passed. Maybe I'm missing something, but the only reason I see is money and lobbying. Nobody has provided any further explanation other than "it's the law, you have too." For the moment, it is what it is and the legal system and society have made it so. I have argued with advocates elsewhere on this site and I can assure you their resolve is a force to be reckoned with. They could care less weather or not we understand or agree with the law. They have their law and their only concern now is enforcement. There seems to be some very angry advocates who have sacrificed rationality and civility to maintain their law at all costs.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.
> 
> They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.
> 
> ...


I believe Lyft is claiming Lyft should not be held responsible / liable for the drivers actions. They aren't standing up for drivers, they are throwing you under the bus.

You have to take service animals because when you accept a fare you are providing a service. You are prohibited by law from certain discriminations. You can't refuse, legally, because a pax is Jewish or black. Same goes for a disabled pax w/sevice dog.

What is so hard to understand.

Again, Lyft isn't challenging the law, it is say YOU should be punished not them for violations.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Pax Collector said:


> Sigh..... You just don't get it. Best of luck on your quest.


Monty Python and the quest for service animals


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Phantomshark said:


> At the same time, they are fighting to change the law as regards us, so we no longer have to accept service animals.


No they aren't, they are saying "hey, we're just a tech company. It's the actual drivers who are at fault."

Dont kid yourself, they aren't going to bat for us.


JustTreatMeFair said:


> Independent Contractors are not "Public Transportation" like a Taxi.


Lol, most taxi drivers ARE also independent contractors. This is a weak argument.

Once you accept a fare you are providing a service.whether played employed by a company, owner of the company or contracted by a company matters not.

The independent contractor status protects the company much more that the ic.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> I believe Lyft is claiming Lyft should not be held responsible / liable for the drivers actions. They aren't standing up for drivers, they are throwing you under the bus.
> 
> You have to take service animals because when you accept a fare you are providing a service. You are prohibited by law from certain discriminations. You can't refuse, legally, because a pax is Jewish or black. Same goes for a disabled pax w/sevice dog.
> 
> ...


I've looked up Title II and Title III entities in the ADA law, and they are referred to as facilities and premises. I can't find anything that refers to public transportation, let alone taxis or Uber vehicals. Where would I find that? What is the wording?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

ZenUber said:


> I do see the hypocrisy. But a corporation isn't concerned with that and feels no guilt. They have a loss prevention department who's job it is to prevent any monetary losses due to law suits. I think they are just covering all bases by putting it in the TOS as well as claiming they are not responsible themselves under the law. The conflict doesn't matter to them. All that matters is that they don't lose any money.
> 
> I think you may be asking the wrong crowd. We are not lawyers. And most people don't get the essence of the law. Have you ever watched Judge Judy and those kind of shows? Even when people lose, they still think they are right, and they just think the Judge got it wrong. They seem to think that because they didn't intend to break the law, therefore they actually didn't break the law.
> 
> ...


No documentation is required because it wouldn't make sense to require documentation.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.
> 
> They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.
> 
> So what am I missing?


The ADA was passed long before smart phones , ridesharing and Lyft were even conceived of.

The real question is whether Lyft itself is a "public accommodation".

What did the fathers of this particular legislation think, did they want it applied to a company like Lyft?

The court has to make a decision, whether to interpret the ADA broadly or narrowly.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Demon said:


> No documentation is required because it wouldn't make sense to require documentation.


According to who?
It would make sense to me.



I_Like_Spam said:


> The ADA was passed long before smart phones , ridesharing and Lyft were even conceived of.
> 
> The real question is whether Lyft itself is a "public accommodation".
> 
> ...


So if it went to court, and the lawyers are arguing weather to interpret broadly or narrowly, is it an accepted practice to consider the _intent_ of the writers of the legislation?


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

ZenUber said:


> According to who?
> It would make sense to me.
> 
> 
> So if it went to court, and the lawyers are arguing weather to interpret broadly or narrowly, is it an accepted practice to consider the _intent_ of the writers of the legislation?


Yes, it can be a legitimate argument that can be considered. Although I think the real question here is whether Lyft is legally a "public accommodation" or not. It didn't exist at the time of the ADA. If the Lyft company is just a dispatcher or travel agent, are they a responsible party even if the Partner's Private Car is a "public accommodation" according to law.


----------



## NotanEmployee (Apr 20, 2019)

Coachman said:


> Under 49 C.F.R. § 37.29 of the ADA, discrimination includes refusing to provide services to disabled people who can use taxis, refusing to assist with the stowing of mobility devices, and charging higher fares to people with disabilities or for storing their equipment.


??????



JustTreatMeFair said:


> Drivers of Ride Share vehicles do not fall under accomodations and certainly do not employ 15 or more people


The 15 employees number is for disabled employee accomodation which does not apply in this case



JustTreatMeFair said:


> Independent Contractors are not "Public Transportation" like a Taxi.


The ADA specifically says any business. A business is defined as an entity that accepts money for goods and services. We, as independent contractors, are business owners and 90% of us are legally required to have business licenses. (There are rare jurisdictions that do not require business licenses) as a business owner, you can not discriminate against a person for having a disability. The area of the ADA that talks about service animals does apply to us as business owners.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> I've looked up Title II and Title III entities in the ADA law, and they are referred to as facilities and premises. I can't find anything that refers to public transportation, let alone taxis or Uber vehicals. Where would I find that? What is the wording?


----------



## NotanEmployee (Apr 20, 2019)

I promise you will not find wording specific to rideshare or independent contractors as it applies to all businesses.

But here us the first paragraph of title III. Maybe you missed it...

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with *regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,* facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation.

You provide a service. As a driver for hire, you are a public service if you charge money. If you are not charging money then its private and you can totally say no to transporting anyone for any reason. If you take money, through an app that the public uses to to get transportation, then you can deny anyone for any reason EXCEPT those reasons protected under anti discrimination laws. One of which is disability.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> .... and learn how a service animal is trained to be able to weed out fakes. it's really not that difficult.


What good does it do to be able to weed out the fakes if Uber/Lyft takes the word of the passenger over the driver?



Demon said:


> Do you have a court ruling saying that U/L drivers are different than taxi drivers?


 Do you have one that says they are? You must be one of those "Guilty" before being proved innocent types.

Everyone seems to simply fall in line like lemmings believing the armchair lawyers in the forums. Interesting that 4 pages in not a single person can post a law responding to my questions. Just a lot of "It is what it is dude. Except it"....

Taxi Drivers are a form of public transportation and can respond to street hail. Ride share drivers cannot pickup the general public or be hailed. They drive only those that the belong to the "club" that are assigned to them.

It does not seem to be a situation that has been tested. Those harmed are not suing the drivers individually. They are going after the companies themselves.



NotanEmployee said:


> But here us the first paragraph of title III. Maybe you missed it...
> 
> Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with *regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,* facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation.
> 
> You provide a service. As a driver for hire, you are a public service if you charge money. If you are not charging money then its private and you can totally say no to transporting anyone for any reason. If you take money, through an app that the public uses to to get transportation, then you can deny anyone for any reason EXCEPT those reasons protected under anti discrimination laws. One of which is disability.


I think you are reading more into that than is meant by it. Google the phrase and every explanation is a explanation or discussion of what a place of public accommodation is.. i.e a store, or office or room in a home on Air B&B. It seems to be an explanation that anyone operating one of these places that sells goods or provides services or rents the facility has to abide.

I provide a service but I do NOT provide a service in a place of public accommodation.

We are drivers with cars that are defined somewhere as a "tool" if I recall in reference to an explanation of why Taxi Drivers have to comply due to the company being in the transportation business.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

ZenUber said:


> According to who?
> It would make sense to me.
> 
> 
> So if it went to court, and the lawyers are arguing weather to interpret broadly or narrowly, is it an accepted practice to consider the _intent_ of the writers of the legislation?


That's because you haven't thought it out. You'd be taking away a person's right to train their own service animal. You'd also never be able to tell the real service dogs from the fakes because anyone could make up whatever documentation they want.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

That sounds pretty clear-cut, but then again that’s not the actual law, just a description of it. Where is it in the actual law? And as a secondary question, I assume public transportation refers to trains buses and planes. If someone gets on a plane with A service animal, are they not required to buy a second seat for the animals? How would a medium or large size dog even sit in a seat on the plane?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Original Poster is trying to cite the difference between a real taxicab, which is a *public*-vehicle-for-hire and an Uber/Lyft/VIA car, which is an illeg-ER-uh-_*PRIVATE*_ -vehicle-for-hire. From there, he wants to exempt himself from ADA Rules, as his is a private vehicle, which is not included in the ADA.

This looks good on paper, but, I doubt that it will play out empirically.



JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft quotes ADA requirements as a reason for a policy and requires drivers to do something while arguing they are not subject to the ADA requirements. You don't see the hypocrisy in that?


Anyone who thinks that Lyft (or Uber, for that matter) is not above double standards and dumping the problems on the driver needs to do a little HW. Lyft puts itself out there as the "better boyfriend" and gets more than a little mileage out of that, but, in reality, it is no better than Uber.



itendstonight said:


> I'm waiting for an untrained dog to rip a little girl's face off like at an airport and then maybe there will be a crackdown.


Fake "service animals" have attacked airline passengers, which is how the airlines are getting away with a bottom line flouting of those provisions of the ADA.



UberBeemer said:


> From a legal point of view, they see the best case scenario as putting compliance solely on the shoulders of the drivers. Worst case, they lose and things stay the same.


The TNCs are trying to do what the cab companies did for years. When there was an incident involving a miscreant cab driver, when anyone came to the cab company, the cab company simply threw up its proverbial hands and stated "He is an independent contractor, there is nothing that we can do." The lawyers were getting tired of hearing this, so, they went to the politicians that they support and caterwauled. The politicians then told the regulators to hold the cab companies responsible for their drivers. A few judges jumped into the game just for good measure. Now, the cab companies are responsible for the conduct of their drivers. The leap to holding a TNC responsible for the conduct of its driver is not difficult.



JustTreatMeFair said:


> I have transported every passenger with a Service Animal I have encountered.


You do it, you simply do not like it. You do not have to like it, as Hillary did not win. The only requirement is still that you do it.



Boca Ratman said:


> most taxi drivers ARE also independent contractors


...........and it has been close to thirty years that the courts, regulators and politicians have been holding those same cab companies responsible for the deportment of their drivers. Ask me how I know this,


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> I assume public transportation refers to trains buses and planes. If someone gets on a plane with A service animal, are they not required to buy a second seat for the animals? How would a medium or large size dog even sit in a seat on the plane?


You assume wrong. Planes are exempt from ada laws, they have theor own governing body, the FAA and specific laws.

Service animals are NOT allowed to sit in the seats. If the dog is too big to sit or lay in the floor at the seat it has to be stowed.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> What good does it do to be able to weed out the fakes if Uber/Lyft takes the word of the passenger over the driver?


This is a separate issue and has nothing to do with ada laws.



JustTreatMeFair said:


> Taxi Drivers are a form of public transportation and can respond to street hail. Ride share drivers cannot pickup the general public or be hailed. They drive only those that the belong to the "club" that are assigned to them.


It's not a club. We are contracted by a public entity for the purpose of transportation. Once you accept the contract, (ride request) you are held to the same laws. You know it, I know it. You're looking for a loophole based on antiquated language. You're doing nothing more than saying nu uh.










https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-rights-ada/frequently-asked-questions#19 <follow the links for specific laws.

You become a public business as soon as you accept a fare. Believe it or don't believe it. Do what you want. Uber, Lyft and any other public company will not back you here, it would be a PR nightmare for the parent company.

You can argue the wording of the laws all you want, the INTENT of the law is to protect disabled persons. You know this, just because "rideshare' is not specifically named in the law does not mean we are exempt. That is a foolish thought.

You cannot leagally refuse a pax because of because they are black. You cannot refuse a pax because they are Muslim. You cannot refuse a pax because they are Iranian. You cannot refuse a pax because they are gay. These are examples of discrimination.

You cannot leagally refuse a service animal, it is discrimination.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Original Poster is trying to cite the difference between a real taxicab, which is a *public*-vehicle-for-hire and an Uber/Lyft/VIA car, which is an illeg-ER-uh-_*PRIVATE*_ -vehicle-for-hire. From there, he wants to exempt himself from ADA Rules, as his is a private vehicle, which is not included in the ADA.
> 
> This looks good on paper, but, I doubt that it will play out empirically.


I am not trying to exempt myself I am trying to get someone, anyone to identify what law required rideshare vehicles to adhere to ADA laws. ADA is only 1 area where technology has created new things that don't fit in current boxes and has to be readdressed.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Anyone who thinks that Lyft (or Uber, for that matter) is not above double standards and dumping the problems on the driver needs to do a little HW. Lyft puts itself out there as the "better boyfriend" and gets more than a little mileage out of that, but, in reality, it is no better than Uber.


I fully understand how they have double standards. The issue here for me is what happens if they are successful in their defense and are found to not have to comply with the ADA on these issues. IMO any/all legal attention for enforcement focuses on drivers until drivers are found to not have to comply. THAT is an expensive aspect to deal with.

This legal fight they are having is not about service dogs. It's about requiring LYFT to readily have vehicles available and drivers trained to transport people with medical equipment, wheel chairs, etc. Not all wheel chairs fold up and stow easily.

City Bus lines that serve the public have to have vehicles available that have lifts and/or ramps for example. That's what Lyft is fighting. That's part of what it means to be in the transportation business and make reasonable accommodations to handicapped vehicles.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Fake "service animals" have attacked airline passengers, which is how the airlines are getting away with a bottom line flouting of those provisions of the ADA.


Airlines are still allowing Service Animals making the "reasonable" accommodations they are required to make. Animals must fit in your lap or the space under a seat at you feat or you have to buy a seat for them. They have greatly curtailed the Emotional Support Animal craze. ESA's are NOT service animals and have zero protection under the law.



Another Uber Driver said:


> The TNCs are trying to do what the cab companies did for years. When there was an incident involving a miscreant cab driver, when anyone came to the cab company, the cab company simply threw up its proverbial hands and stated "He is an independent contractor, there is nothing that we can do." The lawyers were getting tired of hearing this, so, they went to the politicians that they support and caterwauled. The politicians then told the regulators to hold the cab companies responsible for their drivers. A few judges jumped into the game just for good measure. Now, the cab companies are responsible for the conduct of their drivers. The leap to holding a TNC responsible for the conduct of its driver is not difficult.


Conduct yes. But Taxis are a form of Public Transportation and heavily regulated. Providers of Public Transportation are required to comply with the ADA.



Another Uber Driver said:


> You do it, you simply do not like it. You do not have to like it, as Hillary did not win. The only requirement is still that you do it.
> 
> ...........and it has been close to thirty years that the courts, regulators and politicians have been holding those same cab companies responsible for the deportment of their drivers. Ask me how I know this,


Rideshare is much newer and structured differently than taxi companies.

The services we provide are NOT public transportation services. IF so ANY member of the public should be able to walk up to an UBER driver on a corner , get in and get a ride where they need to go.

Personally I think the easiest way to explain what and how laws apply to UBER and LYFT can be demonstrated with a couple of business that operate here in Texas outside of what the law allows. It is a concept here in Texas that exists all over the country in some form I think.

PUBLIC venues adhere to certain laws that PRIVATE venues do not have to.

In Dry Counties where alcohol sales in open containers are banned CLUBS exist where people join the club a and become a member and can now drink in their private club. I can't remember where but I ordered a glass of wine for dinner and was asked if I was a member. I had no idea and it was explained and I was brought a membership card to fill out and was then served as a member.

In Texas Gambling is not allowed. It is estimated that 2.5 BILLION dollars leaves the state every year to Louisiana, Oklahoma, Vegas and other places.

In the last few years though Poker Rooms have popped up and we have multiple places to serve our urges to play Texas Hold-Em any day of the week. How? You join the club. For a nominal $40 fee you can pay by the hour to sit at a table with a professional dealer and 9 other people (maybe less) and gamble from $1 to thousands of dollars. The house is walking a fine line in an area not thought of by the lawmakers. The Poker Clubs take nothing from the pot. They charge a membership fee and you pay for a seat at a table by the hour. All betting and and wins are between the people at the table.

Many People blindly let themselves get put in a box because someone does not know where they fit.

UBER and LYFT exist and operate in the grey area greatly due to how they define their business. Can you or I go out to the airport right now and pick up a passenger charging them a fee? Or to a street corner downtown? Not for most. The costs involved to create a state licensed service that can operate legally are beyond us. So are the legal costs in defending our right to do so. Along comes UBER/LYFT and sets up their club operating as the middle man saying "WE are not an organization you have laws designed to regulate. WE have access to BILLIONS of Dollars to defend our right to so. Your move. " They are getting challenged more and more but not before getting uber rich right?

Back to what we do...... I think Ride Share drivers are experiencing that and comply through ignorance. I believe all the Service Dog shills in here posting believe they are right but other than "Because I said so" I see no one offering up the proof of what a ride share driver is liable for in regards to the ADA.

Until it gets a rewrite and update to bring it into the current technological world the grey area exists.

If LYFT wins their position and are NOT required to be ADA compliant as a transportation company AND there continues to be no legal proof that a Ride Share driver has a legal obligation to laws designed by the ADA I would imagine a few lawyers would take advantage of the large number of deactivated and disgruntled drivers that want a say in how they conduct their business while adhering to the law. LYFT has deep pockets right?

Once again. I love dogs and drive pretty much ANY Dog without concern to whether or not it is a service animal. It has to remain on the floor, off my seats and any/all mess it creates gets cleaned up when the dog leaves. I have a couple of Towels in the trunk any passenger is welcome to get and lay down to catch any hair if their dog is shedding ot they can use a hair/lint remover to clean up after their dog. If they don't have one I have one they can use and have handed it to them multiple times. Not a single responsible pet owner has declined to clean up after their pet/service dog.

What I DON'T love is being expected to adhere to laws that do not apply to me. What I WANT is the right, without fear of deactivation, to make my own decision on who to serve and who not to. I am willing to take the heat as well as deal with the fight that someone might bring over my refusal.

More people should be willing to stand up for themselves.



Boca Ratman said:


> This is a separate issue and has nothing to do with ada laws.


I agree. I was responding to something another member said.



Boca Ratman said:


> It's not a club.


I know that. I was explaining how I look at it.



Boca Ratman said:


> We are contracted by a public entity for the purpose of transportation. Once you accept the contract, (ride request) you are held to the same laws. You know it, I know it. You're looking for a loophole based on antiquated language. You're doing nothing more than saying nu uh.


LYFT does not seem to know it or agree with it.

I think you miss the point of the entire thread and what it is based on. I raised the question of what Ride Share Drivers are individually responsible for under the law based on the premise that LYFT, currently defending themselves in a lawsuit, claims to NOT be in the transportation business and that they do NOT have to adhere to ADA laws that would compel them to accommodate disabled people with transportation needs the typical driver or available vehicle cannot provide.

If LYFT were not making this argument I would not raise have raised this question. I am concerned that if LYFT proves their point that Ride Share Drivers become the focus of enforcement efforts.

It also made me ask why, if LYFT does not believe they are in the Transportation business, it is presumed I am. I do not provide a public service of any kind.



Boca Ratman said:


> View attachment 318875


Thank-you. If LYFT proves they are beyond the scope of the ADA on these issues as they relate to transportation, AS Independent Contractors are not in the position of fulfilling THEIR requirements to adhere.

It then become a test of whether WE provide a public transportation service. I think it is pretty clear that we do not. We only transport people under contract to a single entity. We can not engage the public at will or serve their needs at will.



Boca Ratman said:


> You become a public business as soon as you accept a fare. Believe it or don't believe it.


You choose to believe it. I don't I am fulfilling a contract with a private entity that also does not believe they are required to adhere to the ADA.



Boca Ratman said:


> Do what you want. Uber, Lyft and any other public company will not back you here, it would be a PR nightmare for the parent company.


Yet they are doing exactly that claiming to not have to comply are they not? Where is that public outcry?



Boca Ratman said:


> You can argue the wording of the laws all you want, the INTENT of the law is to protect disabled persons. You know this, just because "rideshare' is not specifically named in the law does not mean we are exempt. That is a foolish thought.


So exactly why is LYFT foolish in their defense?



Boca Ratman said:


> You cannot legally refuse a pax because of because they are black. You cannot refuse a pax because they are Muslim. You cannot refuse a pax because they are Iranian. You cannot refuse a pax because they are gay. These are examples of discrimination.


Different laws apply that I can readily acknowledge by need to adhere to.



Boca Ratman said:


> You cannot legally refuse a service animal, it is discrimination.


Your argument was pretty good up to this point although I believe it is no legally correct but you do yourself a disservice with your final argument. Anti-discrimination laws do not apply to ANY animals including service animals.

I am looking for something a little more than


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Original Poster is trying to cite the difference between a real taxicab, which is a *public*-vehicle-for-hire and an Uber/Lyft/VIA car, which is an illeg-ER-uh-_*PRIVATE*_ -vehicle-for-hire. From there, he wants to exempt himself from ADA Rules, as his is a private vehicle, which is not included in the ADA.
> 
> This looks good on paper, but, I doubt that it will play out empirically.


It won't.

The moment you trade service and accommodation for a fee, you are in business. When it takes place in your car, your car is now a place of public accommodation.

If anyone doesn't like it, they have two choices: stop driving for hire or risk losing everything for the rest of your life. U/L have managed to take themselves out of the equation by making it clear to drivers that driving on their platforms means conforming to the ADA law.

Previous lawsuits show us no business is exempt. Previous judgements show us that the losses in judgements run into the 100s of $1,000s.

If anyone thinks they have nothing to be taken now, they're kidding themselves. Wages garnished, income tax refunds and bank accounts, including any retirement accounts or accounts for their kids college seized, liens on homes, judgement on credit history that can keep them from being able to rent, etc. In some cases, they can even foreclose on you and not only seize your home itself, but everything in it.

Deactivation isn't the force to be reckoned with here.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Animals must fit in your lap or the space under a seat at you feat or you have to buy a seat for them.


Wrong, categorically wrong. 


JustTreatMeFair said:


> I do not provide a public service of any kind.


Yuh-huh


JustTreatMeFair said:


> Yet they are doing exactly that claiming to not have to comply are they not? Where is that public outcry?


My God man. No, this isn't what the lawsuit is about. Its about the liability. They are saying Lyft as a company should not be held liable, the individual drivers should. Ffs.



JustTreatMeFair said:


> Anti-discrimination laws do not apply to ANY animals including service animals.


Yuh-huh.
They absolutely 100% do. They protect the Muslim, the black, the Jewish, the Iranian, the gay AND the disabled including those who require a service animal. If you refuse a ride to a jew because hes Jewish its discrimination, if you refuse a pax w/a service animal its discrimination. No difference.

Read the damn laws.

You can believe and nuh-uh all you want but it doesn't not change facts. Idaf what you do. I hope you put your fantasy theroys to the test.



JustTreatMeFair said:


> So exactly why is LYFT foolish in their defense?


I didnt say Lyft was foolish. I said you were.



JustTreatMeFair said:


> I am looking for something a little more than


You want someone to tell you your right, you're not. You keep going back to Lyft says they shouldn't have to adhere to the ada laws which is not what the lawsuit is about.

In Lyft Corprate headquarters they have handicap bathrooms. They have accommodations for wheel chairs. Handicapped parking. Lyft does not claim it's that Lyft is exempt from ada laws.

They aren't trying to exempt Lyft drivers from adhering to the ada laws. They are not saying Lyft customers are not covered by the protections of the ada. You're basing your whole argument on something that's not true. You made it up.

Go away


----------



## Phantomshark (Jan 21, 2018)

How can people be this thick? Being an independant contractor does not mean you do not have to follow the law. If we drive passengers in exchange for money, we cannot deny service animals, just like we cannot deny people based on race.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> It won't.
> 
> The moment you trade service and accommodation for a fee, you are in business. When it takes place in your car, your car is now a place of public accommodation.


I understand you want to believe this but saying it does not make it so.



SuzeCB said:


> If anyone doesn't like it, they have two choices: stop driving for hire or risk losing everything for the rest of your life.


LOL! That's being quite dramatic isn't it?



SuzeCB said:


> U/L have managed to take themselves out of the equation by making it clear to drivers that driving on their platforms means conforming to the ADA law.


Can you point that out? They seem to have company policy's regarding driver's not refusing service to people with Service Dogs but that is their policy. The ADA has many requirements placed on drivers that UBER/LYFT does not seem interested in forcing drivers to comply with.



SuzeCB said:


> Previous lawsuits show us no business is exempt. Previous judgements show us that the losses in judgements run into the 100s of $1,000s.


Actually many businesses ARE exempt but get less press coverage as they are not getting sued.



SuzeCB said:


> If anyone thinks they have nothing to be taken now, they're kidding themselves. Wages garnished, income tax refunds and bank accounts, including any retirement accounts or accounts for their kids college seized, liens on homes, judgement on credit history that can keep them from being able to rent, etc. In some cases, they can even foreclose on you and not only seize your home itself, but everything in it.
> 
> Deactivation isn't the force to be reckoned with here.


No. Deactivation is not. Poorly informed FaceBook and Twitter junkies that rely on Social Media for their talking points are certainly trying to be though.

Every state has laws that determine how far anyone can go to collect on a judgement. You have greatly exaggerated what is possible. I think you forget the fact that the vast majority of UBER/LYFT drivers are doing this because they NEED to. They hardly have anything that would get seized via a judgement.

Personally I know nothing like you have described would happen here in Texas. I have no doubt there are a few states overly liberal that may go that far but it is hardly the norm.

The Judgement hurting credit for a while is about the only part that would have weight.

You are greatly misinformed m'amm.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I understand you want to believe this but saying it does not make it so.
> 
> LOL! That's being quite dramatic isn't it?
> 
> ...


Case law makes it so. The law makes it so.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I understand you want to believe this but saying it does not make it so.
> 
> LOL! That's being quite dramatic isn't it?
> 
> ...


 I only said so, because you're already is so. Just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean it hasn't happened to thousands and thousands of other people all across the country. This is one law you just don't want to be on the wrong side of. And it is a federal law, not a state law. It is upheld and enforced consistently across the entire country. There are quite a few businesses that has been put out of business because they do not comply with the Ada with regard to their customers. Do your research. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the simple fact of the matter is if it came down to it, you would lose. I am not dependent on you driving, however, so please, feel free to do as you wish. It still doesn't make you the smartest person in the room.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Phantomshark said:


> How can people be this thick? Being an independent contractor does not mean you do not have to follow the law. If we drive passengers in exchange for money, we cannot deny service animals, just like we cannot deny people based on race.


It is not "just like" racial issues which is much more clearly defined by other laws. It is a very grey area that exists because of the ride share presence in the market and laws that have not been updated in years.

Do you read what you post?

See that sentence that states* "Under the ADA ......................(yada yada) that serve the public "GENERALLY" must allow service animals......... " *

What do you suppose "generally means?

Ok.

Please post the law that applies to 
- a private party, 
- driving a personal vehicle, 
- that can not in any way directly serve the public,
- is fulfilling a contract with another private party that is NOT required to be ADA compliant

and show us which parts of the ADA we have to comply with and which parts we do not have to comply with.

No one else here has been able to do so.



SuzeCB said:


> I only said so, .....


LMAO! can't post a bit of support for your position huh?


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> It is not "just like" racial issues which is much more clearly defined by other laws. It is a very grey area that exists because of the ride share presence in the market and laws that have not been updated in years.


It's not gray. I've alread posted links. You're just to stubborn to admit you're wrong or to stupid to read.

"Generally" is explained in detail in the law. Read it.


----------



## Phantomshark (Jan 21, 2018)

https://www.transit.dot.gov/are-private-contractors-required-comply-americans-disabilities-act-ada
Are you not reading this? Federal government website specifically referencing private contractors. That's us. What in your puny brain would make you think its ok for us to disciminate against disabled people when no one else is allowed to?


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> It is not "just like" racial issues which is much more clearly defined by other laws. It is a very grey area that exists because of the ride share presence in the market and laws that have not been updated in years.
> 
> Do you read what you post?
> 
> ...


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Rideshare is much newer and structured differently than taxi companies.


You are trying to tell me about my business. You can not do that. I need not answer what you have posted, as, everyone else has been trying to tell you the answer. Even more than one Forum Troll is trying to tell you the answer. Too bad that it is not what you want to read, -eh?

You did make one accurate statement: Lyft is trying to duck being required to make sure that there are vehicles out there to accommodate those protected under the ADA. The problem is that it can not. This is one reason why VIA is paying some cab drivers who drive accessibles to cover any wheelchair request that it gets. VIA pays the driver a flat hourly wage to be out there eight hours daily for however many days called for in the contract. The driver can do what he will, run whatever street hails, calls or whatever that he will. The only catch is that he must travel any distance within the Washington Metropolitan Area to cover a request for an accessible. He does not have to discharge a passenger that he is carrying, but, when he does discharge that passenger, he must cover the request.

VIA considers this less expensive than paying lawyers to litigate a case it is likely to lose.

Consider, as well, that the various jurisdictions allow the TNCs to operate as long as they do not discriminate with regard to________________________(fill in the usual) and that they comply with all applicable Federal Laws. One of the laws that the jurisdictions consider "applicable" is the ADA.

You must consider, as well, that when there is legal action, these lawyers follow the money. You , as the driver, do not have any. The TNCs, despite their red ink bottom line, do have a few million lying around here or there that a lawyer can attach. This is why the TNCs will be held responsible. As it stands now, Lyft, Uber and VIA are responsible for seeing that demand protected under the ADA is covered. Lyft is trying to duck that, but, it is not going to happen. Until the courts have disposed of the case, though, Lyft is still responsible for seeing to it that its contractors comply with the ADA. If it does not do that, it can be held liable for "aiding and abetting".

This, of course, passes over the doctrine of "disparate impact". That is the subject of another post, entirely. It might be the one thing that does stop the TNCs from ducking their responsibility for this.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.
> 
> They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.
> 
> ...


Looks crystal clear to me.

Would think they're tightening things up in court first. At least appears that way.

Smart move on their part. If I were in their shoes, would, certainly, want to error on the side of the law over side of the driver.

Hopefully, the court will rule in their favor. THEN, it's on them to pass the benefit on to the driver.

Best case scenario would be for us to longer be required to transport service animals. Or, in the very least, restrict the extent by which we have to comply.


----------



## UberTrent9 (Dec 11, 2018)

kc ub'ing! said:


> I'm positive 90% are not legit service animals. I don't mind taking pets so it's not an issue for me. But I hate being lied to!
> 
> When a fellow driver who does mind taking pets gets hacked based upon a lie, it bothers me! Some nimrod wants to take their little buddy everywhere they go, so they call it a service animal. It's not cool!
> 
> I hate liars. Call it a flaw.


Then why do you drive for U/L as both repeatedly lie, scam, screw people over on a daily bssis?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

MiamiKid said:


> Looks crystal clear to me.
> 
> Would think they're tightening things up in court first. At least appears that way.
> 
> ...


Thankfully drivers will be required to transport.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> You did make one accurate statement: Lyft is trying to duck being required to make sure that there are vehicles out there to accommodate those protected under the ADA. The problem is that it can not.
> 
> This is one reason why VIA is paying some cab drivers who drive accessibles to cover any wheelchair request that it gets. VIA pays the driver a flat hourly wage to be out there eight hours daily for however many days called for in the contract.
> 
> VIA considers this less expensive than paying lawyers to litigate a case it is likely to lose.


MONEY/DEEP POCKETS often times prevail in court. VIA may have taken the only option they could financially afford.

LYFT has access to much more money and has chosen to fight it. It is usually in court where laws end up challenged that clarity as well as change comes.

I think under current law we see accomodations being made for the Ride Share Companies until such time as new laws and regulation occurs.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I am trying to get someone, anyone to identify what law required rideshare vehicles to adhere to ADA laws.


I've posted them.


JustTreatMeFair said:


> I do not provide a public service of any kind.


Assuming you are a Lyft driver when you get paid to drive someone you are now part of commerce as defined in the law. It matters not what you think. It matters not what Lyft thinks. You are in fact taking money for a service that is open to the public. Contractor, owner or employee it fors not matter. I have posted the laws. Get someone to read it to you.


JustTreatMeFair said:


> It also made me ask why, if LYFT does not believe they are in the Transportation business, it is presumed I am.


Lyft would claim the same thing if you raped a pax and the victim tried to sue Lyft. Just as they do with items left in cars. They do not want the liability for the drivers actions. Its business. What they claim has nothing to do with what you are personally responsible for.

Try to claim your not in the Transportation business after you get into an accident and kill someone.

You are not leagally allowed to refuse a service animal, it is considered discrimination. The same as if you declined because of race or religion.


----------



## NOXDriver (Aug 12, 2018)

Benjamin M said:


> We all signed the same contract as independent contractors for Uber/Lyft. Both require us to accommodate service animals. It's that simple.


No, Lyft/Uber says 'follow the law'. They are not telling you to do anything. You are free to refuse service animals.. if reported they will simply not allow you to use their services.


----------



## Kevin.G (May 10, 2019)

um.... aside from medically documented acute allergy to fur bearing animals, I fail to see why uber/lyft driver or drivers would refuse to allow service animals in their car... frankly it's slightly hypocritical because that same driver would/does likely allow a drunk person...

logic= drunk person is more likely to be a danger to me and possibly others... conversely....service animals pose no danger to me or others

obviously I am not bringing the legalities involved with service animals into my comment.... suffice it to say law or no law I would allow service animals in my car because it's the respectful thing to do.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

MiamiKid said:


> Best case scenario would be for us to longer be required to transport service animals. Or, in the very least, restrict the extent by which we have to comply.


THAT'S never gonna happen, unless it also becomes legal to deny based on gender, race, etc.

The parts of the ADA that deal with discrimination do so because it was such a huge problem. And here we are, 30 years later, and all these drivers not getting that it's the law, and the law for a reason, just prove that it's still a huge problem.

Some people are narcissistic, psychopathic jerks, missing an empathy chip.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Demon said:


> Thankfully drivers will be required to transport.


Personally, will continue turning, these stupid animals, down until deactivation! ?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

MiamiKid said:


> Personally, will continue turning, these stupid animals, down until deactivation! ?


Which will hopefully be soon.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Some people are narcissistic, psychopathic jerks, missing an empathy chip.


It always saddens me when those that can not produce the documentation to support their beliefs turn to name calling. So childish.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> THAT'S never gonna happen, unless it also becomes legal to deny based on gender, race, etc.
> 
> The parts of the ADA that deal with discrimination do so because it was such a huge problem. And here we are, 30 years later, and all these drivers not getting that it's the law, and the law for a reason, just prove that it's still a huge problem.
> 
> Some people are narcissistic, psychopathic jerks, missing an empathy chip.


Could care less.

I work in real estate, as a licensed Property Manager, and we are now turning down 90% of service animals, per direction from our attorney. Happens to be the best attorney in the state.

We know what we're doing. Have no problem with an actual service animal that performs a real function, for someone truly disabled.

However, we do NOT recognize animals for emotional support and other bogus reasons. And yes, we have been in court several times and sure there will be more appearances.

That's our viewpoint, and way the way we do business. And we're, very much, justified in doing so.

And your name calling is childish and shows insecurity.

My two cents


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> It always saddens me when those that can not produce the documentation to support their beliefs turn to name calling. So childish.


The documentation has already been provided. No need to duplicate.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> The documentation has already been provided. No need to duplicate.


Trust me, we have complete validation, for our policy, with service animals. Similar to the airline industry.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

MiamiKid said:


> Could care less.
> 
> I work in real estate, as a licensed Property Manager, and we are now turning down 90% of service animals, per direction from our attorney. Happens to be the best attorney in the state.
> 
> ...


Ummmmm, emotional support animals are not the same as service animals.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

MiamiKid said:


> Could care less.
> 
> I work in real estate, as a licensed Property Manager, and we are now turning down 90% of service animals, per direction from our attorney. Happens to be the best attorney in the state.
> 
> ...


Federal law says you must take emotional support animals in apartments, etc.

If you're winning, it's because you've been dealing with people that have been duped by these online sites selling "official certifications" instead of the real ones.

For a real one, the person must be "under the care" of a qualified doctor, not have one texting session with a doctor from overseas.

I applaud you weeding out the fakes, as much as I deplore your attitude that disabled don't deserve to have equal access (which medical equipment, which is what a real service animal is, allows).



MiamiKid said:


> Trust me, we have complete validation, for our policy, with service animals. Similar to the airline industry.


The airlines have to take service animals. And they do. They balk at emotional support, which is not covered for transportation by the ADA, but rather by FAA, but even allow those if they are properly contained and controlled. SAs and ESAs are entirely different things.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> Ummmmm, emotional support animals are not the same as service animals.


Exactly


----------



## Kevin.G (May 10, 2019)

wow... some really strong "feelings" supporting disallowing service animals... let's see..... service animals are typically dogs, they are expertly trained, very well behaved, well cared for and groomed, pose no danger to driver.... they may leave a bit of fur which takes seconds to vacuum up.

Again, aside from an allergy to fur bearing animals or a fear of animals... I do not understand the reasoning for saying no... can someone please enlighten me?


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Kevin.G said:


> Again, aside from an allergy to fur bearing animals or a fear of animals... I do not understand the reasoning for saying no... can someone please enlighten me?


I will give you a few reasons I know a lot of people never considered.

After transporting someone with a dog I used to simply run a quick hand vac over the back and head off to the next ride. Now I keep a neutralizer in the car as well as a towel and a long ziplock bag to put it in after use. The towl goes on the floor where the dog is going to go.

A)* It can negatively affect your income -* Consider times of excessive demand and that elusive surge that can make a day a good one instead of a normal one. I've transported passengers that may get into the car wearing expensive clothing that get pretty perturbed if they get pet hair on their clothes. I can't stand having cat hair on me.

Say you are jammed with back to back pings in a period of times with the surge money equivalent to an old 3X ride and transport someone with a long hair dog and don't take enough time to clean up afterwards to insure no hair.

I had this happen and had a guy in an expensive long winter coat pissed because he found a little hair I missed. He complained to UBER, got a refund, I lost the fare AND he rated me a 1 on the ride.

B) * It can negatively affect your income - *Very close to that event I transported a lady and her dog once after rainy weather and her dog was wet. Wet dog smell is as bad as Whataburger smell (a Texas thing) at times. Although I fabreezed the interior immediately after a wipe down and could not notice anything myself a few rides later I had a couple of old uppity up type ladies get in and maybe a second after swiping to start the trip one of them started complaining of the smell and told the other she simply could not ride in the car. They canceled the ride and yet another complaint to UBER.

The closeness of the 2 separate and unique complaints triggered one of Ubers ever so helpful emails about cleanliness with a link to tips on cleaning my car. I was pissed to receive it as I keep a very clean car and was at the HUB within about 15 minutes (I was newer back then and thought it mattered).

I always make a rider with a dog keep the dog on their lap or at their feet on a large towel I supply for the purpose.

After the ride the towel goes into a plastic bag in the trunk until I get time to vacuum it.

C) * It can negatively affect your income - *Aside for the driver or immediate family there is the possibility of transporting a passenger with a pet allergy or a simple aversion to pets. It is not uncommon in the purchase or sale of household or clothing items or even stuffed animals for there to be people that will not buy anything that does not come from a pet free environment.

Killing time with a couple of other drivers once a driver saw my screensaver which has my dog featured. He told me he lost a fare once when they noticed a screensaver on his phone of his dog and asked if it was ever in the car with him.

D) The worst issue I've experienced......

MOST PEOPLE here seem to think I am a dog hater or something akin to one when the opposite is actually the case. I AM THAT PERSON they hate that wants to take my dog everywhere with me and expects everyone to love him. (they actually do though)

I have an intact French Bulldog. He is 2 years old and at my side or feet pretty much anytime I am not driving ride share. He is well known and loved in my office as well as the offices of associates I do business with. Clients usually meet him when they meet me. Frenchies are natural Goof Balls and People Pleasers and most people find him to have a very unique personality.

At the end of 2018 I rotated my "business" car into the mix for driving Ride Share. It is a 2016 full size domestic 4 door top trimmed model. My Frenchie has been in it at my side for 2 years.

One morning we got in the car and off to the office of an associate. He left my side and was sniffing around the back and as I watched in the mirror he "marked" the rear passenger side door and seat and as I was pulling over while admonishing him he marked the floor on that side of the car as well.

He had NEVER marked in my home or in the car previously. I thought he may be sick and we went to see his Vet that afternoon. He was fine but the Dr questioned me on things and asked of anyone else had been in the car recently that owned a dog or had one.

That triggered my memory and something I should have already thought of. The day before I had transported a lady with her dog to a breeder. He dog was in heat, wearing a diaper, on the way to being impregnated.

AS much as I know and SHOULD have known this would happen, I spaced it off. I steamed the carpets cleaned the door seat and used neutralizer on the areas. After it was dry and I could smell nothing I ran a Ozone Generator in the car cycling air through all the vents in every possible setting.

The next time he was in the car he was fine so I guess I got it taken care of for now. I use the Ozone Generator after anything that smells up the car now.

So&#8230;&#8230;. Transporting a pet can affect other passengers, your ratings and tips and even your own pet if you have one. In my case I need to be careful if another intact male dog or female in heat were to be in the car.

I've since purchased a new car that my Frenchie rides beside me in during my normal day to day activities.

Some may think the odds of this happening to them are slim and they certainly may be.

Austin, however, is a very dog friendly city and in the last year went so far as to introduce a 3 day weekend event on a non-festival weekend dedicated to dogs and their owners where many restaurants developed dog friendly menus and owners were encouraged to dine with their doggies or attend events all over town.

I had never considered the impact of a dog marking in my car. If left too long or not properly cleaned it could trigger other dogs doing the same on future rides. Or even behavioral issue from a normally well behaved animal.

Any time I have a rider ask me about taking their dog I tell them fine but make them aware I have an intact male that probably logged 60,000 miles next to me in the last couple of years. If they have an intact male it is something that could trigger the behavior and an accident in the car can be very expensive to correct.

Those are a few reasons why a driver might want the right to make a decision that affects his ride. Often times explaining to someone why, they cancel and decide to try to scam a ride with a different driver.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I will give you a few reasons I know a lot of people never considered.
> 
> After transporting someone with a dog I used to simply run a quick hand vac over the back and head off to the next ride. Now I keep a neutralizer in the car as well as a towel and a long ziplock bag to put it in after use. The towl goes on the floor where the dog is going to go.
> 
> ...


Every driver on the forum, including you, already made the decision to take the service animal. A little too late to back out now.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> Every driver on the forum, including you, already made the decision to take the service animal. A little too late to back out now.


I've not "backed out" but believe that Policies can and do change. How often has the TOS been changed from what was originally agreed to by drivers over the years?

LYFT, with their policy, has chosen to take a vigilante approach to enforcing drivers to adhere to one segment of one law because of the grey area that exists. If they successfully win their position on ADA compliance not applying to them there may be reason to get out of the middle of trying to police something that is the purview of the Justice Department.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I've not "backed out" but believe that Policies can and do change. How often has the TOS been changed from what was originally agreed to by drivers over the years?
> 
> LYFT, with their policy, has chosen to take a vigilante approach to enforcing drivers to adhere to one segment of one law because of the grey area that exists. If they successfully win their position on ADA compliance not applying to them there may be reason to get out of the middle of trying to police something that is the purview of the Justice Department.


You willingly agreed. There's no grey area here.


----------



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

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I find it ludicrous that LYFT s fighting to show they are not bound by ADA laws yet enforcing them where their drivers are concerned.


Why do you find it ludicrous? When my brother and I were little kids travelling in the back seat of the family car, we'd often be smacking each other upside the head and generally causing havoc. When my father turned round and shouted, "knock it off!", we'd both reply, "it was _him_!".

Lyft's behaviour is no different. It's _them_, not us. I do remember receiving an email from Lyft a while ago saying, "we've got your back", but I disregarded it as nonsense.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Your simple little argument is no different than what LYFT and UBER has tried to use in every single lawsuit and arbitration they have paid out millions for. 

One thing is for sure. Change seldom happens where no one raises issues.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Your simple little argument is no different than what LYFT and UBER has tried to use in every single lawsuit and arbitration they have paid out millions for.
> 
> One thing is for sure. Change seldom happens where no one raises issues.


You're saying that you actively want to change ADA so that the disabled can't leave the house and have no right to be out in society? That's the change you're hoping to enact?


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Nope. Not at All. In regards to Rideshare I believe there should be a class of drivers that willingly desire to and are given the bulk of service animal trips in exactly the same manner that Cab Companies and Bus Companies provide their "Reasonable Accomodations"

Lyft should get out of the business of policing drivers compliance if they believe that they have no responsibility themselves.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Nope. Not at All. In regards to Rideshare I believe there should be a class of drivers that willingly desire to and are given the bulk of service animal trips in exactly the same manner that Cab Companies and Bus Companies provide their "Reasonable Accomodations"
> 
> Lyft should get out of the business of policing drivers compliance if they believe that they have no responsibility themselves.


That would be a clear violation of peoples' rights. Again, the change you're bringing about is to try to hurt the most vulnerable people in society.


----------



## JustTreatMeFair (Nov 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> That would be a clear violation of peoples' rights. Again, the change you're bringing about is to try to hurt the most vulnerable people in society.


LMAO.

No. It would NOT be a violation for them to wait a few extra minutes for a ride any more than it is a violation of a disabled people's rights to have to wait for a Paratransit vehicle to take them to a bus stop or from a bus stop to their home. Both UBER and LYFT already work on and provide alternative ways to transport some of the disabled.

On a side note, I would be willing to bet that your (and others) constant reference to the disabled as "the most vulnerable people in society" would be found extremely insulting by many with disabilities.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> LMAO.
> 
> No. It would NOT be a violation for them to wait a few extra minutes for a ride any more than it is a violation of a disabled people's rights to have to wait for a Paratransit vehicle to take them to a bus stop or from a bus stop to their home. Both UBER and LYFT already work on and provide alternative ways to transport some of the disabled.
> 
> On a side note, I would be willing to bet that your (and others) constant reference to the disabled as "the most vulnerable people in society" would be found extremely insulting by many with disabilities.


Legally it would be. When a vehicle is able to handle someone and refuses them service on the fact that they are disabled that's a violation of the law.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> I am not trying to exempt myself I am trying to get someone, anyone to identify what law required rideshare vehicles to adhere to ADA laws. ADA is only 1 area where technology has created new things that don't fit in current boxes and has to be readdressed.
> 
> I fully understand how they have double standards. The issue here for me is what happens if they are successful in their defense and are found to not have to comply with the ADA on these issues. IMO any/all legal attention for enforcement focuses on drivers until drivers are found to not have to comply. THAT is an expensive aspect to deal with.
> 
> ...


This is getting too long for me to keep up, so I'll just respond to this one. There is something in the law called "case law". What that means is that they can't rewrite the law, each and every time some new situation comes around, so it's argued out in court and a "precedent" is created. When a case is heading in a direction that is so unfavorable to one of the parties (they are about to lose, and lose badly), they will settle to make the thing go away and avoid the even worse outcome of a verdict against them. This is what happened with TNC (Uber specifically, but Lyft saw which way the wind was blowing and followed suit). Uber idiots (I don't say "drivers" because that would malign the ones who were actually doing things right) were refusing service dogs (especially for the blind). Interestingly (and very telling, frankly) even Uber really didn't put up much of an argument that there wasn't a legal requirement under the ADA to take them (that's how obvious the ADA Title III wording is, you're just being stubborn and refusing to accept it). Uber's big argument was that it was the DRIVERS problem, and not Uber's fault if the driver refused (basically, "go after the drivers, not us!"). It all hinged on the whole "independent contractor" thing, much like the cabs did years ago (see AnotherUberDriver's explanation of that).

Well, it started going pretty much the same way as it did for the cab companies, and Uber saw that not only were they not going to win this fight, but they were going to get fined, for each and every violation (and by this time, there were a LOT of them, the fines can be in the $50K range each). Worse (from Uber's point of view), they feared they would get branded a transportation company in precedent (which would almost certainly be used against them in many other areas). Therefore they settled. They are now, under a settlement agreement (which carries the weight of a court order, mind you) REQUIRED to have the service animal policy they do. They also had to pay over $2 million to the National Federation of the Blind of California (the organization that sued them) and agreed to testing (that's right, someone, probably a few someones, out there has a job, and their sole task is to take Ubers places with their service dog and write a report about it; If denied, they ensure that driver gets deactivated, that's their actual job, and Uber paid for it).

You don't need to see a "law" about it, although you have already been provided the ADA Title III, which is (wither you like it or not) the appropriate law that does apply here (the 15 person thing you keep quoting is for changes that has to be made for phsycial access, a restruant with only 3 employees still has to allow a service dog and their handler). You don't even need to see the settlement agreement (which is legally binding, and violation of it would result them losing their case and those hundreds for $50K plus fines all at once, so no way they are going to violate it for you, frankly). However, if you wish to see it...

Synopsis 1: https://dralegal.org/case/national-...lifornia-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/
Synopsis 2: https://www.uber.com/newsroom/nfb-settlement/
Full Settlement: https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PA-CA-0002-0011.pdf

The only thing you NEED to see, is your contract, which... being an independent contractor... is what you are required to comply with (to remain with Uber/Lyft). Ironically, that's kind of the argument that the federation for the blind made. Sure, it's the law, and sure, we could go after the drivers, but if Uber is complicit in this, they are in effect enabling it, it should be in their contract. Well, now it is. Now, we both know it was more because Uber had the money and the drivers don't. However, their point does still remain. Lyft saw the way it was going and modified theirs as well to prevent a lawsuit that would have come had they not.

IF you don't like your contract, opt out of it and don't drive for Uber/Lyft, it really is that simple.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> This is getting too long for me to keep up, so I'll just respond to this one. There is something in the law called "case law". What that means is that they can't rewrite the law, each and every time some new situation comes around, so it's argued out in court and a "precedent" is created. When a case is heading in a direction that is so unfavorable to one of the parties (they are about to lose, and lose badly), they will settle to make the thing go away and avoid the even worse outcome of a verdict against them. This is what happened with TNC (Uber specifically, but Lyft saw which way the wind was blowing and followed suit). Uber idiots (I don't say "drivers" because that would malign the ones who were actually doing things right) were refusing service dogs (especially for the blind). Interestingly (and very telling, frankly) even Uber really didn't put up much of an argument that there was a legal requirement under the ADA to take them (that's how obvious the ADA Title III wording is, you're just being stubborn and refusing to accept it). Uber's big argument was that it was the DRIVERS problem, and not Uber's fault if the driver refused (basically, "go after the drivers, not us!"). It all hinged on the whole "independent contractor" thing, much like the cabs did years ago (see AnotherUberDriver's explanation of that).
> 
> Well, it started going pretty much the same way as it did for the cab companies, and Uber saw that not only were they not going to win this fight, but they were going to get fined, for each and every violation (and by this time, there were a LOT of them, the fines can be in the $50K range each). Worse (from Uber's point of view), they feared they would get branded a transportation company in precedent (which would almost certainly be used against them in many other areas). Therefore they settled. They are now, under a settlement agreement (which carries the weight of a court order, mind you) REQUIRED to have the service animal policy they do. They also had to pay over $2 million to the National Federation of the Blind of California (the organization that sued them) and agreed to testing (that's right, someone, probably a few someones, out there has a job, and their sole task is to take Ubers places with their service dog and write a report about it; If denied, they ensure that driver gets deactivated, that's their actual job, and Uber paid for it).
> 
> ...


If your travels ever bring you to Jersey, PM me and I'll buy you a coffee/tea/drink, and have a lovely organic biscuit ready to go for your partner-in-crime. ?


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.
> 
> They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.
> 
> ...


I see a dog I wait around the corner for the timer to run out.


----------



## Phantomshark (Jan 21, 2018)

peteyvavs said:


> I see a dog I wait around the corner for the timer to run out.


And sooner or later it will catch up to you and you will be deactivated. Just like hundreds of others who have tried this same thing.


----------



## Kevin.G (May 10, 2019)

It really doesn't matter how anyone "feels" about it.... it's not just uber/lyft policy, it's law in many places. 

Getting caught breaking that law will have consequences that the refusing driver will have to face. And I don't think being deactivated is the worse that can happen.... by refusing the service animal you are refusing the disabled person and THAT is a whole new can of worms that y'all can just have fun paying the lawyers to help you defend an indefensible excuse.... what excuse you ask.....that would be your "I don't want to" strategy and how you will or do fulfill this strategy that is plastered all over this thread. 

So....yea...... you just have it and refuse that service animal and disabled person by any means you feel you can get away with.

It's never a matter of 'if' you will get caught, it's a matter of 'when' you will get caught. 

Best of luck, and try really hard not to whine too much when you do get caught.


----------



## CZ75 (Aug 10, 2018)

So what happens when you drop off the service animal and the passenger, only to connect with a person who has allergic reactions to dogs right after that trip?


----------



## Julescase2 (Apr 1, 2019)

JustTreatMeFair said:


> Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.
> 
> They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.
> 
> ...


It appears that you are very very confused about several issues.
1) as a rideshare driver, YOU - yes, YOU - are a business. Period. No way around it. Fact.
2) as a business, you must obey the law. One of the laws you must obey is called the ADA. THAT is the law. Americans with Disabilities Act. You can read it simply by googling it. The law is the ADA - you keep saying you want someone to explain why it effects drivers and you don't seem to be able to comprehend what the law says or why it applies to businesses like rideshare drivers. A part of the ADA (again, that is the name of the law) states that people with disabilities must be given the same services as everyone else. If they happen to have a service animal to assist them in their daily lives, then the service animal goes with them everywhere, just like a wheelchair or cane would go with a person who has physical disabilities and needs those to function.
3) if you refuse that person and their service animal, you're breaking the law. Period. There's nothing here to debate. All of this is 100% fact.

Are you with me so far?

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning "15 employees" repeatedly- you're baffling me and hundreds of others because you're not connecting any dots in your various arguments and uneducated statements. What do 15 employees have to do with the price of tea in China? What do 15 employees have to do with what you don't understand? Why do you keep saying you need someone to explain why the ADA is a law that you must obey? I mean, why do any of us have to obey ANY law? Because they're laws. It's actually quite simple.

I'm reading your comments and retorts and I don't know what you're trying to get at. I mean, everyone has answered your (odd) questions clearly and concisely with accurate and well-phrased explanations, yet you continue to debate a non-debatable point that makes zero sense.

Here's what you really need to do: READ THE LAW. While reading, remember that YOU are a business, providing a service, and as such you must obey laws that pertain to your business if you plan on remaining in business.

We have laws because otherwise we'd live in a world overrun with insanity. As a society, laws are what allow us to function amongst others peacefully, avoiding anarchy and injustice.

If you don't want to obey laws, that's fine. There's a nice little town called Tijuana where you're gonna love life. Enjoy!


----------



## Julescase2 (Apr 1, 2019)

peteyvavs said:


> I see a dog I wait around the corner for the timer to run out.


That's weird and kinda pathetic.

But hey, you do you, Boo.



Kevin.G said:


> It really doesn't matter how anyone "feels" about it.... it's not just uber/lyft policy, it's law in many places.
> 
> Getting caught breaking that law will have consequences that the refusing driver will have to face. And I don't think being deactivated is the worse that can happen.... by refusing the service animal you are refusing the disabled person and THAT is a whole new can of worms that y'all can just have fun paying the lawyers to help you defend an indefensible excuse.... what excuse you ask.....that would be your "I don't want to" strategy and how you will or do fulfill this strategy that is plastered all over this thread.
> 
> ...


It's the law everywhere, if you live/work in the US.

ADA isn't something we get to decide or debate whether or not we agree on; it's a law just like it's the law to abide by the rules of the road and stop at red lights. And it's a law just like it's a law that you have to pay for items in the grocery store if you want them.

The OP seems to feel the ADA is something that one can accept as law, or not, depending on whether you think it's the best way to do things.

OP - please take the time to educate yourself and read the specific points in the ADA. Once you' read the law and have a better understanding of what it is you're attempting to argue, come back and join the conversation.

PS: please don't repeat anything about "15 employees" because that's neither here nor there.


----------

