# It turns out that ADA Service Animal regulations don't even apply to rideshare at all



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

In the midst of the huge song and dance that Uberlyft makes out of we drivers allegedly having to take service dogs under the terms of the ADA, the threats they make to deactivate us, and the actual deactivations of drivers, it turns out that transportation companies are _not_ an included category regulated by the ADA. In spite of what Uberlyft claims, we are not required to take service animals under these regulations.

To briefly explain, the ADA is composed of three parts, or "titles". Title I covers discrimination by employers towards employees and therefore does not apply. Title II covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by any state or local governmet, i.e. places such as libraries, town halls, courts etc. Title III covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by private companies that provide access to the public, i.e. bars, movie theaters, doctor's offices, restaurants etc. It is under Title III that Uberlyft claims that we must give service to service animals, given that we operate private companies and the public accesses our vehicles.

However, and it's a big however, title III of the ADA states:

_Title III, which this rule addresses, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the activities of places of public accommodation (businesses that are generally open to the public and that fall into one of 12 categories listed in the ADA, such as restaurants, movie theaters, schools, day care facilities, recreation facilities, and doctors' offices)
_
In order to be covered by the ADA, the ADA states that the business must fall into one of 12 categories listed in the ADA. Again quoting from the ADA itself, these categories are:

_Place of public accommodation means a facility operated by a private entity whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following categories - _


_(1) Place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a facility that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that actually is occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as the residence of the proprietor. For purposes of this part, a facility is a "place of lodging" if it is - _
_(i) An inn, hotel, or motel; or _
_(ii) A facility that - _
_(A) Provides guest rooms for sleeping for stays that primarily are short-term in nature (generally 30 days or less) where the occupant does not have the right to return to a specific room or unit after the conclusion of his or her stay; and _
_(B) Provides guest rooms under conditions and with amenities similar to a hotel, motel, or inn, including the following - _
_(1) On- or off-site management and reservations service; _
_(2) Rooms available on a walk-up or call-in basis; _
_(3) Availability of housekeeping or linen service; and _
_(4) Acceptance of reservations for a guest room type without guaranteeing a particular unit or room until check-in, and without a prior lease or security deposit. _



_(2) A restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink; _
_(3) A motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment; _
_(4) An auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering; _
_(5) A bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment; _
_(6) A laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment; _
_(7) A terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation; _
_(8) A museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection; _
_(9) A park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation; _
_(10) A nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education; _
_(11) A day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and _
_(12) A gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation._
Note that operating a car for hire, or a taxi, or a rideshare vehicle or anything remotely similar to the service we provide is _not_ included in the ADA's list. The closest thing related to transportation in the list would be "a terminal, depot or other station used for specified public transportation". However, obviously we do not operate a terminal, depot or a station, nor are we public transportation.

*So, the bottom line is, the ADA does not require us to take service animals because our services are not included in the categories covered by this legislation.
*
EDIT: as others point out below, there is other separate legislation that does appear to include service animals.


----------



## 4.9 forever (May 31, 2017)

I have asked them several times to quote the law they keep referring to. They are far to afraid of the popular fallout to change this now.


----------



## jfinks (Nov 24, 2016)

Legislation can be changed, ride share is relatively new. It just started blowing up in the last 2-3 years. Legislation takes time and needs a "problem" to solve. So far it just hasn't been a big enough problem for legislators to get involved.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

jfinks said:


> Legislation can be changed, ride share is relatively new. It just started blowing up in the last 2-3 years. Legislation takes time and needs a "problem" to solve. So far it just hasn't been a big enough problem for legislators to get involved.


Lots of things can happen in the future. The point I make is about things that are happening _now_. Drivers are being threatened and deactivated now, drivers including myself are losing earnings now through suspensions because of suspicion that they didn't comply with a law that doesn't even apply to them.

Let's worry about what can happen if and when it happens. In the mean time, Uberlyft must be educated on the law now so that they stop abusing drivers.


----------



## ADefaultUser (Nov 11, 2015)

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf



> Private entities primarily engaged in providing transportation services are covered by § 12184 of Title III, irrespective of whether they are also public accommodations.





> In addition, the regulation defines what it means to "operate" a "demand responsive" system (or non-fixed route transportation system); in this context, "operates" includes "the provision of transportation services by a &#8230; private entity itself or by a person under a contractual or other arrangement or relationship with the entity." 49 C.F.R. § 37.3. Thus, an entity may operate a demand responsive system even if it does not itself provide transportation services, if it does so through a contractual relationship with another entity or even individual drivers. Indeed, as explained in the DOT guidance, while an entity may contract out its service, it may not contract away its ADA responsibilities. See 49 C.F.R. pt. 37, app. D § 37.23; see also 49 C.F.R. § 37.23(d).


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

Incorrect.

49 CFR 37.21(a)(2)
49 CFR 37.5(f)
49 CFR 37.167(d)


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

ADefaultUser said:


> I'll just leave this here.
> 
> https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf


First, again, the ADA does not cover transportation companies as demonstrated above.

Second, the lawsuit quotes US Code 12184, a separate piece of legislation that makes no mention of service animals. It states that companies may not discriminate based on disability, meaning that we cannot refuse service to those with disabilities, not that we cannot refuse service based on whether they have a dog with them or not.

It is because of the above two flaws in the lawsuit that it has no chance of being successful in court.



sd1303 said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> 49 CFR 37.21(a)(2)
> 49 CFR 37.5(f)
> 49 CFR 37.167(d)


No, I am correct in my observation that rideshare is not covered by the ADA. There may be other, separate, legislation which does cover rideshare. I will take a closer look at this.


----------



## ADefaultUser (Nov 11, 2015)

> It is because of the above two flaws in the lawsuit that it has no chance of being successful in court.


You mean this one?

http://dralegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Settlement_Agreement_Executed_w_Addenda.pdf


----------



## TheWanderer (Sep 6, 2016)

elelegido said:


> First, again, the ADA does not cover transportation companies as demonstrated above.
> 
> Second, the lawsuit quotes US Code 12184, a separate piece of legislation that makes no mention of service animals. It states that companies may not discriminate based on disability, meaning that we cannot refuse service to those with disabilities, not that we cannot refuse service based on whether they have a dog with them or not.
> 
> ...


I admire the research you put into this.


----------



## empresstabitha (Aug 25, 2016)

This does not matter as they don't want to be at the end of a lawsuit where they are against the disabled. This might get some people reactivated but I doub it will change the rules.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

ADefaultUser said:


> You mean this one?
> 
> http://dralegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Settlement_Agreement_Executed_w_Addenda.pdf


Yes, that one. The plaintiffs wisely chose to settle as their case had no legal merit and would have failed had they let it be decided by a judge or jury.

Companies routinely agree to settle lawsuits and Uber is no exception. It's about saving money on lawyers' fees and other costs, rather than on the strength of legal positions.


----------



## ADefaultUser (Nov 11, 2015)

> meaning that we cannot refuse service to those with disabilities, not that we cannot refuse service based on whether they have a dog with them or not.


If a person needs their dog because they have a disability, and you are denying their dog access, yes you are denying the person with disabilities access.


----------



## newbiewpb (Jul 5, 2016)

elelegido said:


> In the midst of the huge song and dance that Uberlyft makes out of we drivers allegedly having to take service dogs under the terms of the ADA, the threats they make to deactivate us, and the actual deactivations of drivers, it turns out that transportation companies are _not_ an included category regulated by the ADA. In spite of what Uberlyft claims, we are not required to take service animals under these regulations.
> 
> To briefly explain, the ADA is composed of three parts, or "titles". Title I covers discrimination by employers towards employees and therefore does not apply. Title II covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by any state or local governmet, i.e. places such as libraries, town halls, courts etc. Title III covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by private companies that provide access to the public, i.e. bars, movie theaters, doctor's offices, restaurants etc. It is under Title III that Uberlyft claims that we must give service to service animals, given that we operate private companies and the public accesses our vehicles.
> 
> ...


for petes sake
just give the people the frikin ride!!
dont these people have enough stress
now your refusing service because you dont want a dog in the car
yet you wll transport any scumbag human
remember this
the dogs are not going to abuse you.
they wont complain
its just a dog smh


----------



## ADefaultUser (Nov 11, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Yes, that one. The plaintiffs wisely chose to settle as their case had no legal merit and would have failed had they let it be decided by a judge or jury.
> 
> Companies routinely agree to settle lawsuits and Uber is no exception. It's about saving money on lawyers' fees and other costs, rather than on the strength of legal positions.


LOL, that's some nice spin there. Plantiffs got everything they wanted, and yet they somehow "wisely settled"? gtfo.


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

elelegido said:


> No, I am correct in my observation that rideshare is not covered by the ADA. There may be other, separate, legislation which does cover rideshare. I will take a closer look at this.


The federal regulations I referenced are the transportation provisions of the ADA.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

newbiewpb said:


> for petes sake
> just give the people the frikin ride!!
> dont these people have enough stress
> now your refusing service because you dont want a dog in the car
> ...


Don't try to tell me what to do, lol. You do what you want and I'll do what I want.



sd1303 said:


> The federal regulations I referenced are the transportation provisions of the ADA.


Not so. The first regulation you quote, 49 CFR 37.21(a)(2), states:

_Entities to which this part applies *also may be subject to* ADA regulations of the Department of Justice ( 28 CFR parts 35 or 36, as applicable).
_
It clearly states that ADA regulations are in addition to, and therefore separate from, 49 CFR 37.21(a)(2)



ADefaultUser said:


> LOL, that's some nice spin there. Plantiffs got everything they wanted, and yet they somehow "wisely settled"? gtfo.


And you had been doing so well, until your little gtfo out the end! This is a forum, and it is ok for participants to have different opinions and points of view. But there are always the immature little ones such as yourself who throw tantrums and throw all their toys out of their pushchair when others don't agree with them. That's pretty pathetic.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

Any entity that provides a public service is bound to do this if the entity can reasonably accommodate the animal, which most cars can. You are reading more into the letter of the law then the spirit I believe. The court case quoted above pretty much squashes your argument and is probably the origin of Uber's service animal addendum. That court case (which is a US Court case, before anyone says a court case in California doesn't affect me in Ohio) sets a precedent for others to sue if a driver fails to provide service to someone with a service animal.

You are welcome to challenge that ruling and appeal if you get sued for this. Please let us know how it turns out if you do.

EDIT: You're point seems to be that ride share is not included. However, nowhere does it state that ride share is excluded by ADA. That being said, it would be reasonable to assume that as there is no reason to not accommodate, then by law you must.

I shall post this again; https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

*Where Service Animals Are Allowed*
*Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go.* For example, in a hospital it would be inappropriate to exclude a service animal from areas such as patient rooms, clinics, cafeterias, or examination rooms. However, it may be appropriate to exclude a service animal from operating rooms or burn units where the animal's presence may compromise a sterile environment.


----------



## newbiewpb (Jul 5, 2016)

yes please do "what you" want
sounds just like the paxhole non tippers

my dog has a "special gift " for you 
karma 101
will you or will you not step in dog poop ? while enjoying the outdoors
im laughing right now 
you. are a very important person
your car is probably nice
= type"A"
and your also 
a lawyer 









im laughing at you
this is ridiculoso,omg


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Not so. The first regulation you quote, 49 CFR 37.21(a)(2), states:
> 
> _Entities to which this part applies *also may be subject to* ADA regulations of the Department of Justice ( 28 CFR parts 35 or 36, as applicable).
> _
> It clearly states that ADA regulations are in addition to, and therefore separate from, 49 CFR 37.21(a)(2)


You need to do some more reading.

The Americans with Disabilities act refers to a section of the US Code, which was mentioned above by someone else. It is 42 USC Chapter 126 (sections 12101-12213).

In there is 42 USC 12144, which generally prohibits discrimination in various types of transportation available to the public.

.... and 42 USC 12149(a), which says:
Not later than 1 year after July 26, 1990, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue regulations, in an accessible format, necessary for carrying out this subpart

The Secretary dutifully issued these regulations, which are contained in the 49 CFR 37 sections that I referenced.

Separately, the DOJ also had to come up with some regulations to carry out the ADA. Their regulations are contained in 28 CFR 35 and 36. Aparantly, DOT thinks there may be some overlap between their ADA regulations and those of DOJ.


----------



## newbiewpb (Jul 5, 2016)

is this a lawyers chat room?
let me double check


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

You can't go strictly by the wording of the law, when there are so many different lawsuits that have hit the courts. Once that starts to build up, you're also dealing with case law, which can and will change the nuances of the law.

Following is a link to a page on the ada.gov site with some FAQ.

https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

newbiewpb said:


> is this a lawyers chat room?
> let me double check


It is not.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

RynoHawk said:


> The court case quoted above pretty much squashes your argument and is probably the origin of Uber's service animal addendum. That court case (which is a US Court case, before anyone says a court case in California doesn't affect me in Ohio) *sets a precedent for others to sue* if a driver fails to provide service to someone with a service animal.
> 
> *You are welcome to challenge that ruling* and appeal if you get sued for this. Please let us know how it turns out if you do.


You are incorrect on both of these points. First, the case was a civil case, and the concept of precedent does not apply to civil law. Civil court judges may be influenced by previous civil cases, but are not bound by precedent. Second the case did not conclude in a ruling, it ended with a settlement and thus avoided going to trial and reaching a judgment.


> EDIT: You're point seems to be that ride share is not included. However, nowhere does it state that ride share is excluded by ADA.


Rideshare is not included in the ADA; there is nothing for it to be excluded from. However, there is other legislation separate from the ADA which may require service animals to be transported.


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)




----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

SuzeCB said:


> You can't go strictly by the wording of the law, when there are so many different lawsuits that have hit the courts. Once that starts to build up, you're also dealing with case law, which can and will change the nuances of the law.
> 
> Following is a link to a page on the ada.gov site with some FAQ.
> 
> https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm


Interesting. That FAQ adds taxicabs to the list of business categories that the ADA applies to, whereas the ADA text itself does not include taxicabs. I believe though that the actual regulations themselves and not the FAQ sheet would be the source of reference in case of dispute.

The legal cases I've seen have all been civil cases, so case law and precedent wouldn't apply.



Grahamcracker said:


> View attachment 143778


Yeah... agreed. Sorry about that. But it's clearly an issue that a lot of people are interested in and, in come cases, get quite emotional / passionate about.


----------



## Uber_Yota_916 (May 1, 2017)

When you get sued by a disabled person for denial of transportation let us know it turns out. There isn't a more protected group than the disabled community.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

elelegido said:


> You are incorrect on both of these points. First, the case was a civil case, and the concept of precedent does not apply to civil law. Civil court judges may be influenced by previous civil cases, but are not bound by precedent. Second the case did not conclude in a ruling, it ended with a settlement and thus avoided going to trial and reaching a judgment.
> Rideshare is not included in the ADA; there is nothing for it to be excluded from. However, there is other legislation separate from the ADA which may require service animals to be transported.


It also didn't rule that rideshare was excluded. The case was settled and suddenly you have "service animal addendums" you must agree to, so that does not sound like anything proclaiming rideshare is exempt. What it tells me is Uber's lawyers said "we have no case and should try to settle. While we're at it, we need to make sure our drivers know they must accept service animals and have them acknowledge in an addendum to their contracts or be deactivated." Many examples have been posted that as a business, you must abide by accepting service animals. You as a rideshare driver are operatiing as a business. If you think you found an out that so many lawyers, judges, etc. have overlooked, then knock yourself out and do what you want to do because obviously you have made up your mind and no one here is going to change it.

EDIT: Also, the US District Court case linked was not a civil suit in the sense of damages being decided between two private parties. The point of the suit alleges Uber violated Federal law, thus why it is heard in US District Court and prosecuted by the US District Attorney's Office.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

RynoHawk said:


> It also didn't rule that rideshare was excluded. The case was settled and suddenly you have "service animal addendums" you must agree to, so that does not sound like anything proclaiming rideshare is exempt. What it tells me is Uber's lawyers said "we have no case and should try to settle. While we're at it, we need to make sure our drivers know they must accept service animals and have them acknowledge in an addendum to their contracts or be deactivated." Many examples have been posted that as a business, you must abide by accepting service animals. You as a rideshare driver are operatiing as a business. If you think you found an out that so many lawyers, judges, etc. have overlooked, then knock yourself out and do what you want to do because obviously you have made up your mind and no one here is going to change it.


No, but the ADA doesn't state that rideshare or similar is included, either. The burden of demonstrating that the law was broken is on the plaintiff. They must show that the defendant is covered by the legislation; it is not up to the defendant to demonstrate that they are excluded.

This was a case in which Uber decided to settle. The terms were, among other things, that they pay $45,000 to each individual in the suit and Uber admitted no wrongdoing. A very small price to pay for a company like Uber in order to make this go away. As mentioned above, companies will almost always look to settle civil suits in order to save money; it has little to do with the strength of legal positions.

Anyway, you misunderstand the point I am making. I am not suggesting this is an "out". As the title of this says, we are not required by the ADA to take service animals. As others have pointed out, though, there is other legislation separate from the ADA that relates to the transportation industry.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

elelegido said:


> In the midst of the huge song and dance that Uberlyft makes out of we drivers allegedly having to take service dogs under the terms of the ADA, the threats they make to deactivate us, and the actual deactivations of drivers, it turns out that transportation companies are _not_ an included category regulated by the ADA. In spite of what Uberlyft claims, we are not required to take service animals under these regulations.
> 
> To briefly explain, the ADA is composed of three parts, or "titles". Title I covers discrimination by employers towards employees and therefore does not apply. Title II covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by any state or local governmet, i.e. places such as libraries, town halls, courts etc. Title III covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by private companies that provide access to the public, i.e. bars, movie theaters, doctor's offices, restaurants etc. It is under Title III that Uberlyft claims that we must give service to service animals, given that we operate private companies and the public accesses our vehicles.
> 
> ...


You're public transportation and a public accommodation. ADA applies to all Uber and Lyft drivers based on what you just posted.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Demon said:


> You're public transportation and a public accommodation. ADA applies to all Uber and Lyft drivers based on what you just posted.


Which of the 12 categories specified in the ADA is the one that you claim applies to us? Please state which one by number.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

Whether the legislation is specifically spelled out in the ADA or not, the ADA ultimately guides any other legislation that relates to serving people with disabilities. Whether Uber or anyone else states "In compliance with ADA" or "In compliance with 'x' legistlation no one heard of but exists because of the ADA", the end result is still the same (just with more addendums to acknowledge or face deactivation). You will still have to take service animals.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uber_Yota_916 said:


> When you get sued by a disabled person for denial of transportation let us know it turns out. There isn't a more protected group than the disabled community.


*Reading comprehension. I have not stated that I would deny a disabled person accompanied by a service animal.


----------



## Rickshaw (Jun 30, 2017)

I culled the SF Forum and found the oldest 58 members are gone. Of all the current active members here, elelegido has the oldest post.

Congratulations, elelegido!
You must be doing something good/right to have kept you going for so long.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the contributions.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Rickshaw said:


> I culled the SF Forum and found the oldest 58 members are gone. Of all the current active members here, elelegido has the oldest post.
> 
> Congratulations, elelegido!
> You must be doing something good/right to have kept you going for so long.
> ...


Congratulations? That's it? No cash prize or gift vouchers? 



RynoHawk said:


> Whether the legislation is specifically spelled out in the ADA or not, the ADA ultimately guides any other legislation that relates to serving people with disabilities. Whether Uber or anyone else states "In compliance with ADA" or "In compliance with 'x' legistlation no one heard of but exists because of the ADA", the end result is still the same (just with more addendums to acknowledge or face deactivation). You will still have to take service animals.


Apparently so, and thanks to the people who brought the other legislation up. Again, the conclusion from this is that, while the ADA is not relevant to us, there is other legislation which is.


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

One item bothers me. The agreement states that even though a driver may have an allergy do a dog or other service animal they cannot refuse a ride. I don't know if allegies to dogs or service animals can be fatal but I do know some allergies can be fatal or at a minimum require immediate medical care. There is nothing in the agreement to cover such a situation. That can lead to a major legal suit


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

mikes424 said:


> One item bothers me. The agreement states that even though a driver may have an allergy do a dog or other service animal they cannot refuse a ride. I don't know if allegies to dogs or service animals can be fatal but I do know some allergies can be fatal or at a minimum require immediate medical care. There is nothing in the agreement to cover such a situation. That can lead to a major legal suit


It's an interesting point. Suppose an allergic driver is forced to take a service dog. The driver has an allergic reaction and loses control of the car during the ride. The car crashes into an oncoming vehicle and the pax is killed in the impact. Who would be responsible? The law states that the driver had to take the dog regardless of allergies, so the driver couldn't be responsible. Uber wouldn't be responsible either as it was under the same duress to take the pax. That leaves only the pax - would he/she therefore be responsible for causing their own death?

And if someone in the oncoming car was injured, whom could they sue for damages? Not the Uber driver or Uber, and the pax in the Uber is dead. It'd mean that the person in the oncoming car would suffer loss and not be able to get compensation from anyone.


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

mikes424 said:


> One item bothers me. The agreement states that even though a driver may have an allergy do a dog or other service animal they cannot refuse a ride. I don't know if allegies to dogs or service animals can be fatal but I do know some allergies can be fatal or at a minimum require immediate medical care. There is nothing in the agreement to cover such a situation. That can lead to a major legal suit


Correct. Allergies are not a valid exemption to the ADA. In a workplace, one is entitled to "reasonable accommodation." In businesses that serve the public, one is entitled to "full and equal access."

In the case of taxis, it appears that the courts have decided that the ability to refuse a customer's service animal cannot be a reasonable accommodation for a driver's allergy disability. One would assume that the same would be applied to Uber drivers, but we won't know for sure until someone gets sued.



elelegido said:


> It's an interesting point. Suppose an allergic driver is forced to take a service dog. The driver has an allergic reaction and seizure during the ride. The car crashes into an oncoming vehicle and the pax is killed in the impact. Who would be responsible? The law states that the driver had to take the dog regardless of allergies, so the driver couldn't be responsible. Uber wouldn't be responsible either as it was under the same duress to take the pax. That leaves only the pax - would he/she therefore be responsible for causing his own death?
> 
> And if someone in the oncoming car was injured, whom could they sue for damages? Not the Uber driver or Uber, and the pax in the Uber is dead. It'd mean that the person in the oncoming car would suffer loss and not be able to get compensation from anyone.


Take the dog out of it. The driver knows that he has a disorder that can result in seizures, lapses in consiousness, etc. The driver knows that, while Ubering, he will be exposed to stimuli that will set off his condition in a way that is dangerous to his customers and the public. He decides to operate a for-hire vehicle anyway. Who is responsible when he gets into a crash as a result of his medical condition?


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Which of the 12 categories specified in the ADA is the one that you claim applies to us? Please state which one by number.


https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335



> *ADA Title III: Public Accommodations*
> 
> *Title III covers businesses* and nonprofit *service providers* that are public accommodations, *privately operated entities offering* certain types of courses and examinations, *privately operated transportation*, and commercial facilities. Public accommodations are private entities who own, lease, lease to, or operate facilities such as restaurants, retail stores, hotels, movie theaters, private schools, convention centers, doctors' offices, homeless shelters, transportation depots, zoos, funeral homes, day care centers, and recreation facilities including sports stadiums and fitness clubs. Transportation services provided by private entities are also covered by title III.





> *Title III-public accommodations (and commercial facilities)*
> 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. *Public accommodations* *include* most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, *transportation*, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays.





mikes424 said:


> One item bothers me. The agreement states that even though a driver may have an allergy do a dog or other service animal they cannot refuse a ride. I don't know if allegies to dogs or service animals can be fatal but I do know some allergies can be fatal or at a minimum require immediate medical care. There is nothing in the agreement to cover such a situation. That can lead to a major legal suit


The Federal Law (Americans with Disability Act of 1990) specifically excludes allergies as an excuse for denial of service.

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



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


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

steveK2016 said:


> https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335
> 
> The Federal Law (Americans with Disability Act of 1990) specifically excludes allergies as an excuse for denial of service.
> 
> https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm


Someone else brought that guide up. The documents you reference are a guide on the ADA website to the legislation, not the actual legislation. The legislation actually states that there are 12 categories of businesses covered by the ADA. We can go through each category on the list and see that we are not in any of them. For example, category 1 - we are not an inn, hotel or motel. Category 2, we are not a restaurant, bar or other establishment serving food or drink. Category 3, we are not a motion picture house, theater, concert hall or stadium. Etc etc; we can go through each of the categories but we are not in any of them.

_(1) Place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a facility that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that actually is occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as the residence of the proprietor. For purposes of this part, a facility is a "place of lodging" if it is - _

_(i) An inn, hotel, or motel; or _
_(ii) A facility that - _
_(A) Provides guest rooms for sleeping for stays that primarily are short-term in nature (generally 30 days or less) where the occupant does not have the right to return to a specific room or unit after the conclusion of his or her stay; and _
_(B) Provides guest rooms under conditions and with amenities similar to a hotel, motel, or inn, including the following - _
_(1) On- or off-site management and reservations service; _
_(2) Rooms available on a walk-up or call-in basis; _
_(3) Availability of housekeeping or linen service; and _
_(4) Acceptance of reservations for a guest room type without guaranteeing a particular unit or room until check-in, and without a prior lease or security deposit. _



_(2) A restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink; _

_(3) A motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment; _

_(4) An auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering; _

_(5) A bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment; _

_(6) A laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment; _

_(7) A terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation; _

_(8) A museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection; _

_(9) A park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation; _

_(10) A nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education; _

_(11) A day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and _

_(12) A gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation._


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

Here's the real tricky question... 

You're on an Uber Pool. You get a request to a train station to pick up two passengers. One advises that they are deathly allergic to dogs, the other is blind and has a service animal. Which customer do you refuse service to?

Answer...

As you assess the situation with the two customers, make sure you pay close attention to any discomfort in your chest, arms, or neck. Should you experience these symptoms, stop driving immediately and seek medical attention.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

sd1303 said:


> Take the dog out of it. The driver knows that he has a disorder that can result in seizures, lapses in consiousness, etc. The driver knows that, while Ubering, he will be exposed to stimuli that will set off his condition in a way that is dangerous to his customers and the public. He decides to operate a for-hire vehicle anyway. Who is responsible when he gets into a crash as a result of his medical condition?


That assumes that the driver knew he was allergic to dogs. If he were to be prosecuted, it would have to be proved in court beyond reasonable doubt that he knew about the allergy, which would be easier said than done.

I suppose that if this situation ever arose, it would be treated the same as any other accident for which blame cannot be attributed to a driver, but fault can, for example when a driver has an unexpected heart attack at the wheel. Insurance pays out and that's the end of it.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Someone else brought that guide up. The documents you reference are a guide on the ADA website to the legislation, not the actual legislation. The legislation actually states that there are 12 categories of businesses covered by the ADA. We can go through each category on the list and see that we are not in any of them. For example, category 1 - we are not an inn, hotel or motel. Category 2, we are not a restaurant, bar or other establishment serving food or drink. Category 3, we are not a motion picture house, theater, concert hall or stadium. Etc etc; we can go through each of the categories but we are not in any of them.
> 
> _(1) Place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a facility that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that actually is occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as the residence of the proprietor. For purposes of this part, a facility is a "place of lodging" if it is - _
> 
> ...


Link to the actual law?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

sd1303 said:


> Here's the real tricky question...
> 
> You're on an Uber Pool. You get a request to a train station to pick up two passengers. One advises that they are deathly allergic to dogs, the other is blind and has a service animal. Which customer do you refuse service to?


Answer - you refuse service to neither and let each decide if he would like to take the ride.



steveK2016 said:


> Link to the actual law?


The quote of the 12 categories starts on page 31 of the legislation:

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_regulations.pdf


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

SuzeCB said:


> You can't go strictly by the wording of the law, when there are so many different lawsuits that have hit the courts. Once that starts to build up, you're also dealing with case law, which can and will change the nuances of the law.
> 
> Following is a link to a page on the ada.gov site with some FAQ.
> 
> https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm


This was going to be my post. But there it is.


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Someone else brought that guide up. The documents you reference are a guide on the ADA website to the legislation, not the actual legislation. The legislation actually states that there are 12 categories of businesses covered by the ADA. We can go through each category on the list and see that we are not in any of them. For example, category 1 - we are not an inn, hotel or motel. Category 2, we are not a restaurant, bar or other establishment serving food or drink. Category 3, we are not a motion picture house, theater, concert hall or stadium. Etc etc; we can go through each of the categories but we are not in any of them.
> 
> _(1) Place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a facility that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that actually is occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as the residence of the proprietor. For purposes of this part, a facility is a "place of lodging" if it is - _
> 
> ...


You are correct. We do not operate a business of public accommodation (which is what you have posted the definition of). The ADA section that covers these folks is 42 USC 12182.

We operate a public transportation service provided by a private entity. These services are ALSO covered by ADA Title III (42 USC 12184). The general rule is:
"No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by a private entity that is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce."

The specific regulations which relate to this have already been referenced above.

What exactly is the point of your missive here?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Coachman said:


> This was going to be my post. But there it is.


That's an outdated, archived guide:

*NOTICE: ARCHIVED DOCUMENT*
Portions of this document may not fully reflect the current ADA regulations.Â This document is maintained for reference purposes. For the current version of this document, please go to Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADA.


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Answer - you refuse service to neither and let each decide if he would like to take the ride.


Well done. And after a minute, mark both as "no show" and collect the fee.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

elelegido said:


> In the midst of the huge song and dance that Uberlyft makes out of we drivers allegedly having to take service dogs under the terms of the ADA, the threats they make to deactivate us, and the actual deactivations of drivers, it turns out that transportation companies are _not_ an included category regulated by the ADA. In spite of what Uberlyft claims, we are not required to take service animals under these regulations.
> 
> To briefly explain, the ADA is composed of three parts, or "titles". Title I covers discrimination by employers towards employees and therefore does not apply. Title II covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by any state or local governmet, i.e. places such as libraries, town halls, courts etc. Title III covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by private companies that provide access to the public, i.e. bars, movie theaters, doctor's offices, restaurants etc. It is under Title III that Uberlyft claims that we must give service to service animals, given that we operate private companies and the public accesses our vehicles.
> 
> ...


 okay let's follow this to its logical conclusion --you turn down a service dog, they complain Uber, they deactivate you and then what you're going to do? sue Uber? Good luck with that


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

elelegido said:


> That assumes that the driver knew he was allergic to dogs. If he were to be prosecuted, it would have to be proved in court beyond reasonable doubt that he knew about the allergy, which would be easier said than done.
> 
> I suppose that if this situation ever arose, it would be treated the same as any other accident for which blame cannot be attributed to a driver, but fault can, for example when a driver has an unexpected heart attack at the wheel. Insurance pays out and that's the end of it.


Yes, I agree. Liability would be on the driver in either case (driver was the one who lost control of the car). The two situations are degrees of severity.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> okay let's follow this to its logical conclusion --you turn down a service dog, they complain Uber, they deactivate you and then what you're going to do? sue Uber? Good luck with that


Moot point - I would not decline service to a pax with a service animal. I have not yet had a pax present a service dog for transport, but if/when it happens they would get a ride from me.


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> okay let's follow this to its logical conclusion --you turn down a service dog, they complain Uber, they deactivate you and then what you're going to do? sue Uber? Good luck with that


Nope. You'd be too busy... getting sued by the disabled passenger.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

elelegido said:


> In the midst of the huge song and dance that Uberlyft makes out of we drivers allegedly having to take service dogs under the terms of the ADA, the threats they make to deactivate us, and the actual deactivations of drivers, it turns out that transportation companies are _not_ an included category regulated by the ADA. In spite of what Uberlyft claims, we are not required to take service animals under these regulations.
> 
> To briefly explain, the ADA is composed of three parts, or "titles". Title I covers discrimination by employers towards employees and therefore does not apply. Title II covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by any state or local governmet, i.e. places such as libraries, town halls, courts etc. Title III covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by private companies that provide access to the public, i.e. bars, movie theaters, doctor's offices, restaurants etc. It is under Title III that Uberlyft claims that we must give service to service animals, given that we operate private companies and the public accesses our vehicles.
> 
> ...


 I really don't get all this fuss about animals, heck I would turn down a human being much sooner than I would turn away a dog.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> I really don't get all this fuss about animals, heck I would turn down a human being much sooner than I would turn away a dog.


Entirely your choice. And entirely my choice.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

_(6) A laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment; _

Tell me why we do not fall under either of these.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

sd1303 said:


> Nope. You'd be too busy... getting sued by the disabled passenger.


Nah, they're going to complain and you're going to get deactivated that is the most likely thing that will happen.


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> I really don't get all this fuss about animals, heck I would turn down a human being much sooner than I would turn away a dog.


Same. I don't ask if it's a service dog. Don't really care. If they leave a lot of hair or a mess, I'll submit for a cleaning fee. If it gets denied, then I'll consider it CODB.



Oscar Levant said:


> Nah, they're going to complain and you're going to get deactivated that is the most likely thing that will happen.


It's not an either-or. If you deny a service animal, plan on being deactivated and sued. If one or both don't occur, consider yourself lucky.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

newbiewpb said:


> View attachment 143761
> 
> for petes sake
> just give the people the frikin ride!!
> ...


You miss the point.

*It is not about the dog . It is about the rider /pax claiming, lying, perjuring themselves, that the dog is a Service Animal when it is not !!! See, no, no read Sec. 365.7*

I actually had a blind person call me, ah correction, ( they txt'ed through the app, I know I don't know how they did ), the other day that had a guide dog with them, a legit Service Animal. No problem, I completed the trip. The other dozen were not.

Yes were going to give some of you an education in law, however we / most of us are not Lawyers so please seek the advice of an Attorney.

I don't care what the United States Code USC says. Its mirely a summary for the Code of Federal Regulations CFR's. CFR's have the full effect and weight of law.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

newbiewpb said:


> View attachment 143761
> 
> for petes sake
> just give the people the frikin ride!!
> ...


Amen sister!
Besides, transporting service animals is one of the terms we agreed to when we signed up with Uber - independent of the law. Much like how we agreed not to carry firearms despite the fact that it may be perfectly legal to do so with the right permits. I think that Uber/Lyft have the right to create and enforce policies for their services, and they have the right to expect drivers to adhere to them.


----------



## Uber_Yota_916 (May 1, 2017)

mikes424 said:


> One item bothers me. The agreement states that even though a driver may have an allergy do a dog or other service animal they cannot refuse a ride. I don't know if allegies to dogs or service animals can be fatal but I do know some allergies can be fatal or at a minimum require immediate medical care. There is nothing in the agreement to cover such a situation. That can lead to a major legal suit


A legal suit that will be laughed out of the courtroom. Allergies are not protected but being disabled is.



elelegido said:


> Entirely your choice. And entirely my choice.


Your choice could lead to being deactivated whether you agree or not.


----------



## TNCMinWage (May 18, 2017)

mikes424 said:


> One item bothers me. The agreement states that even though a driver may have an allergy do a dog or other service animal they cannot refuse a ride. I don't know if allegies to dogs or service animals can be fatal but I do know some allergies can be fatal or at a minimum require immediate medical care. There is nothing in the agreement to cover such a situation. That can lead to a major legal suit


Let me ask you: if you told a pax with a service dog that you are highly allergic to dogs, do you REALLY think he/she would force you to drive them vs. booking another ride if you stated this? If your answer is yes: move to a state where there are less *-holes.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

newbiewpb said:


> will you or will you not step in dog poop ?
> View attachment 143762


You know...in some European countries...

I'm told that stepping in dog poop...

Is considered a sign of luck...8)

I just pick it off and fling it...

Rakos


----------



## yojimboguy (Mar 2, 2016)

Go ahead, OP. Refuse the next pax with a service dog, and after Uber deactivats you, tell them your interpretation of the law.

Let us know how it turns out!


----------



## TheWanderer (Sep 6, 2016)

yojimboguy said:


> Go ahead, OP. Refuse the next pax with a service dog, and after Uber deactivats you, tell them your interpretation of the law.
> 
> Let us know how it turns out!





newbiewpb said:


> View attachment 143761
> 
> for petes sake
> just give the people the frikin ride!!
> ...


The OP said he would pick up a pax that has a service animal.
He was just stating that uber is lying to us about us having to take service animals and is claiming we don't don't have to because we are a grey area of the law.

I am not siding with anyone I am just pointing out that some people are stating he said he will refuse a service animal.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

I'm not about to read all these messages. But just take the damn dog. You won't win. 
If you do, the fight won't be worth it. It'll still be a loss



empresstabitha said:


> This does not matter as they don't want to be at the end of a lawsuit where they are against the disabled. This might get some people reactivated but I doub it will change the rules.


Exactly. It's easier to fight a driver for being deactivated than fight a disabled for being mistreated.


----------



## Strange Fruit (Aug 10, 2016)

elelegido said:


> It's an interesting point. Suppose an allergic driver is forced to take a service dog. The driver has an allergic reaction and loses control of the car during the ride. The car crashes into an oncoming vehicle and the pax is killed in the impact. Who would be responsible? The law states that the driver had to take the dog regardless of allergies, so the driver couldn't be responsible. Uber wouldn't be responsible either as it was under the same duress to take the pax. That leaves only the pax - would he/she therefore be responsible for causing their own death?
> 
> And if someone in the oncoming car was injured, whom could they sue for damages? Not the Uber driver or Uber, and the pax in the Uber is dead. It'd mean that the person in the oncoming car would suffer loss and not be able to get compensation from anyone.


And what about the next rider who is allergic? Not that they'd cause an accident. But if the allergy is threatening will the driver be held responsible for having an unsafe car? Unlikely since the animal normally just sits still and so isn't spreading much dander, but for the fun of speculating. 
Oh crap, this guy took my speculation to a higher level:


sd1303 said:


> Here's the real tricky question...
> 
> You're on an Uber Pool. You get a request to a train station to pick up two passengers. One advises that they are deathly allergic to dogs, the other is blind and has a service animal. Which customer do you refuse service to?
> 
> ...


Maybe tell the blind person to hold on, then drive off very quietly hoping they do not figure out what just happened? Are allergies a disability? If the allergic person is rejected cuz they're allergic, is that illegal? What if the aide-dog is limping? Does that cancel out the disabled status, like a double negative?



elelegido said:


> For example, category 1 - we are not an inn, hotel or motel. Category 2, we are not a restaurant, bar or other establishment serving food or drink. Category 3, we are not a motion picture house, theater, concert hall or stadium. Etc etc; we can go through each of the categories but we are not in any of them.


It cracks me up that in this intellectual environment, u felt the need to fully illustrate for people, how to go thru each number to see if we're included.


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

Real service animals aren't that common. I've given one of those rides. It's dead ass obvious that it was legit a service animal cuz pax was disabled.

What annoys me is all the entitled shits trying to bring their dogs. Just record them on the spot lying about their "service animal"


----------



## Strange Fruit (Aug 10, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> I really don't get all this fuss about animals, heck I would turn down a human being much sooner than I would turn away a dog.


It's not fuss (it's actual reasoned discussion).
&
Some people just enjoy discussing something like this. You don't. Good thing no one is forcing you to. There's probably a thread where u can whine about how unfair ratings are.


TNCMinWage said:


> Let me ask you: if you told a pax with a service dog that you are highly allergic to dogs, do you REALLY think he/she would force you to drive them vs. booking another ride if you stated this? If your answer is yes: move to a state where there are less *-holes.


I know. "I'm really sorry. I understand that u need that dog, but I'm severely allergic. I hope ur alright waiting another 2 minutes for the Ubercar on the next block to arrive." However, some would assume ur lying to get out of it. But in 3.5 years I haven't had one service animal, so it's like how we risk dying. It's a real possibility, but not one u worry about everyday. I _have_ taken like 5 regular pets. People in SF train & groom their pets. It's like a non-issue. And a blind person probably has one of those super chill dogs that will sit on the floor where everyone's dirty shoes go. So nobody pretend like it's dirtying yr precious car.

I once turned down a large enthusiastic dog. The woman wanted me to take the dog. Just the dog. It was jumping around her happily while she said "it's very well behaved". And then: "wait, ur _not_ gonna take the dog?!"



TheWanderer said:


> The OP said he would pick up a pax that has a service animal.
> He was just stating that uber is lying to us about us having to take service animals and is claiming we don't don't have to because we are a grey area of the law.
> 
> I am not siding with anyone I am just pointing out that some people are stating he said he will refuse a service animal.


There are just people here who don't understand that things interest some people and so they discuss it. So they assume the only reason one brings a thing up is cuz they're trying to get out of something. The Uber driver population seems full of these people.


----------



## TheWanderer (Sep 6, 2016)

Strange Fruit said:


> It's not fuss (it's actual reasoned discussion).
> &
> Some people just enjoy discussing something like this. You don't. Good thing no one is forcing you to. There's probably a thread where u can whine about how unfair ratings are


Agreed, people just started attacking him for not taking a service animal of which he never said that. He actually said he would.



elelegido said:


> Moot point - I would not decline service to a pax with a service animal. I have not yet had a pax present a service dog for transport, but if/when it happens they would get a ride from me.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

If you have a documented medical condition , doctors blessing then you are to get a pass. However, how much dog fur do you think the other pax are leaving on your floor matts When they have no dog with them ? That appears to have no affect on you.


----------



## TheWanderer (Sep 6, 2016)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> If you have a documented medical condition , doctors blessing then you are to get a pass. However, how much dog fur do you think the other pax are leaving on your floor matts When they have no dog with them ? That appears to have no affect on you.


I had a pax with a legitimate service dog and the dog shed pretty bad on my seats. It was a lab.


----------



## empresstabitha (Aug 25, 2016)

TheWanderer said:


> I had a pax with a legitimate service dog and the dog shed pretty bad on my seats. It was a lab.


lint roller


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Strange Fruit said:


> It cracks me up that in this intellectual environment, u felt the need to fully illustrate for people, how to go thru each number to see if we're included.


Yeah, some had previously been unable to grasp the concept.


----------



## TheWanderer (Sep 6, 2016)

empresstabitha said:


> lint roller


I used scotch tape. Has more utility lol.


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

elelegido said:


> In the midst of the huge song and dance that Uberlyft makes out of we drivers allegedly having to take service dogs under the terms of the ADA, the threats they make to deactivate us, and the actual deactivations of drivers, it turns out that transportation companies are _not_ an included category regulated by the ADA. In spite of what Uberlyft claims, we are not required to take service animals under these regulations.
> 
> To briefly explain, the ADA is composed of three parts, or "titles". Title I covers discrimination by employers towards employees and therefore does not apply. Title II covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by any state or local governmet, i.e. places such as libraries, town halls, courts etc. Title III covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by private companies that provide access to the public, i.e. bars, movie theaters, doctor's offices, restaurants etc. It is under Title III that Uberlyft claims that we must give service to service animals, given that we operate private companies and the public accesses our vehicles.
> 
> ...


But our "clients" say they require it so . . .



RynoHawk said:


> Any entity that provides a public service is bound to do this if the entity can reasonably accommodate the animal, which most cars can. You are reading more into the letter of the law then the spirit I believe. The court case quoted above pretty much squashes your argument and is probably the origin of Uber's service animal addendum. That court case (which is a US Court case, before anyone says a court case in California doesn't affect me in Ohio) sets a precedent for others to sue if a driver fails to provide service to someone with a service animal.
> 
> You are welcome to challenge that ruling and appeal if you get sued for this. Please let us know how it turns out if you do.
> 
> ...


Allowed and _*required by law*_ are two different things.

But my point is, as a contractor, if your client says to do something-that's the final word on the matter! Sorry elelegido but this whole thread is a moot point.



elelegido said:


> Entirely your choice. And entirely my choice.


. . . Yes, your choice to be an TNC contractor . . . or not.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

circle1 said:


> But my point is, as a contractor, if your client says to do something-that's the final word on the matter!


Going to have to disagree with you on that, as I think many here also do. Pax can ask, but they don't tell me what to do, even if they are the client and even if they are paying me a few dollars for their ride. Many pax have made the mistake with me of thinking that, because they are giving me a few dollars, that it creates some kind of master:servant relationship and that I have to do whatever they say for the duration of the ride. E.g:

- "Turn in here, we're going to roll through the drive-thru"
- "No, unfortunately there is no food or drink allowed in the vehicle"
- "But you HAVE to do what I say; I'm PAYING you!"

Ermmm.... no. Ejection or ride denial are the usual outcomes for pax who commit this type of error.

Other examples include expecting that we take five in an X, or telling us to wait 10+ minutes unpaid at curbside for them while they finish getting ready, or telling us to take their red solo cups or open beers, etc etc etc. Maybe your way is that the when the client tells you to do something then they "have the final word", as you say above, and you comply with their whims without question. If so, that's your choice and up to you and I respect that; however that most certainly will never be my way. Pax get to make reasonable requests, which I will authorize or deny at my discretion, and that's it. 


> . . . Yes, your choice to be an TNC contractor . . . or not.


You quote me out of context. The context when I said that "it is my choice" is that it is my choice whether I take pets and emo dogs or not. I would take service animals if they are ever presented by a pax for transportation; I would even take a service animal if there was no legislation in place. But pets and emo dogs, no.



Rakos said:


> You know...in some European countries...
> 
> I'm told that stepping in dog poop...
> 
> ...


Easy to do in Spanish cities - there's dogshit everywhere. It's pretty disgusting.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Strange Fruit said:


> It's not fuss (it's actual reasoned discussion).
> &
> Some people just enjoy discussing something like this. You don't. Good thing no one is forcing you to. There's probably a thread where u can whine about how unfair ratings are.
> 
> ...


If you have a severe allergy to dogs, and it's illegal or against company policy to turn service dogs away, the correct action is, therefore, to quit, since to comply with the job is a hazard to your health.


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

It is futile to talk about laws specially when we are talking about Uber which is above any law. Some critics even argue that Uber itself is an 'outlaw' organization that uses massive funds to influence the regulators directly and indirectly in order to stay afloat. If you want to drive using Uber platform, Uber sets the rule - take it or leave it. The legality of the issue is irrelevant here.

People can go to court about any thing under the sun and often gets justice. However, Uber seems to be off limit whether it is the law of the country or the constitution. It makes and breaks the law at will.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Which of the 12 categories specified in the ADA is the one that you claim applies to us? Please state which one by number.


It's still the public transportation one.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Demon said:


> It's still the public transportation one.


Lol



rembrandt said:


> However, Uber seems to be off limit whether it is the law of the country or the constitution. It makes and breaks the law at will.


So you agree with that I am saying, albeit in a rather long-winded way.


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Lol
> 
> So you agree with that I am saying, albeit in a rather long-winded way.


Well , if I do not allow a service dog at my private home , can ADA guys sue me ? Of course , they can try but good luck with that at a court. My car is also my private property and it is not a public place. What we do with Uber is basically 'private carpooling' with the help of an app. Neither is Uber a public transportation company as far as her official status is concerned.

To summertime , it is not legally binding to allow a service dog in a private car as far as the law is concerned . It is only contractually binding because you agreed to it with Uber as far 'contract law' is considered. So , Uber can deactivate a driver as per contractual agreement. Do whatever suits you. The ADA pax can maximum get one deactivated from Uber but they will have a much difficult task at a litigation if the defendant does not want a settlement


----------



## DeplorableDonald (Feb 16, 2017)

newbiewpb said:


> is this a lawyers chat room?
> let me double check


I eem your Oobair driber. Een by pormer coontry I wuus lawyer.


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

rembrandt said:


> Well , if I do not allow a service dog at my private home , can ADA guys sue me ? Of course , they can try but good luck with that at a court. My car is also my private property and it is not a public place. What we do with Uber is basically 'private carpooling' with the help of an app. Neither is Uber a public transportation company as far as her official status is concerned.
> 
> To summertime , it is not legally binding to allow a service dog in a private car as far as the law is concerned . It is only contractually binding because you agreed to it with Uber as far 'contract law' is considered. So , Uber can deactivate a driver as per contractual agreement. Do whatever suits you. The ADA pax can maximum get one deactivated from Uber but they will have a much difficult task at a litigation if the defendant does not want a settlement


You are operating a business with your vehicle that is available to the general public. That is the difference between your Ubermobile and your home.

You're free to do what you want, of course, but there is risk. The applicability of the ADA to drivers seems pretty evident to me, but we won't know for sure until/unless a driver gets sued.



DeplorableDonald said:


> I eem your Oobair driber. Een by pormer coontry I wuus lawyer.


Racist.


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

sd1303 said:


> You are operating a business with your vehicle that is available to the general public. That is the difference between your Ubermobile and your home.
> 
> You're free to do what you want, of course, but there is risk. The applicability of the ADA to drivers seems pretty evident to me, but we won't know for sure until/unless a driver gets sued.


We seem to get confused by media conjectures and questionable rules enacted by various local government bodies. Is there any clear and specific 'federal classification' of rideshare vehicle as a 'public transport' vehicle ? Does a Uber driver require a commercial trade license ? It does not exist because neither DOT nor IRS enacted a separate regulations pertaining to rideshare. What is the position of FTC ? Uber acts as a communication and payment processing platform between the private car owners and the willing parties. Uber is not a transportation company and the drivers do not operate a 'Licensed business' to serve the public. It is no different than private carpooling.


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

rembrandt said:


> We seem to get confused by media conjectures and questionable rules enacted by various local government bodies. Is there any clear and specific 'federal classification' of rideshare vehicle as a 'public transport' vehicle ? Does a Uber driver require a commercial trade license ? It does not exist because neither DOT nor IRS enacted a separate regulations pertaining to rideshare. What is the position of FTC ? Uber acts as a communication and payment processing platform between the private car owners and the willing parties. Uber is not a transportation company and the drivers do not operate a 'Licensed business' to serve the public. It is no different than private carpooling.


See references to the US Code and CFR above and decide for yourself.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

RynoHawk said:


> _(6) A laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment; _
> 
> Tell me why we do not fall under either of these.


this pretty much covers Uber. Even if you can argue "travel service" being airline or bus, etc, we are a service establishment.



Strange Fruit said:


> And what about the next rider who is allergic? Not that they'd cause an accident. But if the allergy is threatening will the driver be held responsible for having an unsafe car? Unlikely since the animal normally just sits still and so isn't spreading much dander, but for the fun of speculating.
> Oh crap, this guy took my speculation to a higher level:
> 
> Maybe tell the blind person to hold on, then drive off very quietly hoping they do not figure out what just happened? Are allergies a disability? If the allergic person is rejected cuz they're allergic, is that illegal? What if the aide-dog is limping? Does that cancel out the disabled status, like a double negative?
> ...


If you are that allergic to dog danger, then merely walking down the street would set off your allegies, or sitting at a restaurant on a seat that dog owner just sat in. If you are that allergic, your probably best to stay home or walk around in one of those bubbles. Or take allergy medicine...

Allergies are not considered a disability and rejecting service to a person with a service animal on the basis of allergies it not allowed.



rembrandt said:


> We seem to get confused by media conjectures and questionable rules enacted by various local government bodies. Is there any clear and specific 'federal classification' of rideshare vehicle as a 'public transport' vehicle ? Does a Uber driver require a commercial trade license ? It does not exist because neither DOT nor IRS enacted a separate regulations pertaining to rideshare. What is the position of FTC ? Uber acts as a communication and payment processing platform between the private car owners and the willing parties. Uber is not a transportation company and the drivers do not operate a 'Licensed business' to serve the public. It is no different than private carpooling.


There is no federal regulation, afaik, that requires you to have a business license. That's a state/local regulation, much like how NYC requires drivers to pay for several licensing and permits to operating ride share.

You are considered a business, however, as we all pay self employment taxes.


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> this pretty much covers Uber. Even if you can argue "travel service" being airline or bus, etc, we are a service establishment.
> 
> If you are that allergic to dog danger, then merely walking down the street would set off your allegies, or sitting at a restaurant on a seat that dog owner just sat in. If you are that allergic, your probably best to stay home or walk around in one of those bubbles. Or take allergy medicine...
> 
> ...


Keep Ubering !


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Who would be responsible? The law states that the driver had to take the dog regardless of allergies, so the driver couldn't be responsible. Uber wouldn't be responsible either as it was under the same duress to take the pax. That leaves only the pax - would he/she therefore be responsible for causing their own death


It would be the governments fault for enforcing this law. The government should be held responsible.


----------



## driverx.nj (May 15, 2017)

If you really want these people to have access to rides, then it needs to the advantage of the driver to take these trips. A premium such as the extra cost when you take a pet to a hotel. These hotels allow animals but they do charge more for the same room that would be without animals. Just as these people need their SERVICE ANIMALS, people who are afraid or allergic need protection too. 

A jumpy Driver who is afraid or who is allergic and having a reaction to the animal in the car is NOT A SAFE DRIVER. Plus the riders who get in the car after the SERVICE ANIMAL have to be exposed to this as well. Point Blank, if I see an animal I will CANCEL and drive away. I will feel bad but, better I feel bad for protecting myself and than I spend days in the hospital from ANIMAL Allergies. 

Not Complaining, Just Saying


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

driverx.nj said:


> If you really want these people to have access to rides, then it needs to the advantage of the driver to take these trips. A premium such as the extra cost when you take a pet to a hotel. These hotels allow animals but they do charge more for the same room that would be without animals. Just as these people need their SERVICE ANIMALS, people who are afraid or allergic need protection too.
> 
> A jumpy Driver who is afraid or who is allergic and having a reaction to the animal in the car is NOT A SAFE DRIVER. Plus the riders who get in the car after the SERVICE ANIMAL have to be exposed to this as well. Point Blank, if I see an animal I will CANCEL and drive away. I will feel bad but, better I feel bad for protecting myself and than I spend days in the hospital from ANIMAL Allergies.
> 
> Not Complaining, Just Saying


They can charge for a pet but they cant charge for a service animal.

Likewise, uber cannot charge a disabled person more for using their service, in fact, the same rule would apply in that uber cannot ask them if they have a disability or what the disability is. That is so they cant charge more even if they thought they could.

The law is intentionally written this way, it is not an oversight.

Allergies are not a valid excuse to the law. If you are allergic enough to be a safety issue to a dog, then it is your responsibility to seek employment thwt doesnt require you to be in such clpse proximity to them, or take allergy medicine.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

elelegido said:


> the ADA does not cover transportation companies.


Could this be why in The Capital of Your Nation, if the cab drivers file medical proof of allergy to animals, they are permitted to refuse to haul service animals?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Could this be why in The Capital of Your Nation, if the cab drivers file medical proof of allergy to animals, they are permitted to refuse to haul service animals?


I'd love to read more about that. Where can I read about that?


----------



## driverx.nj (May 15, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> They can charge for a pet but they cant charge for a service animal.
> 
> Likewise, uber cannot charge a disabled person more for using their service, in fact, the same rule would apply in that uber cannot ask them if they have a disability or what the disability is. That is so they cant charge more even if they thought they could.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info, now I know what to look out for.


----------



## Ardery (May 26, 2017)

newbiewpb said:


> View attachment 143761
> 
> for petes sake
> just give the people the frikin ride!!
> ...


Exactly. Look how many people are complaining about transporting a dog that has been WELL TRAINED. Keep a towel in your car. Pull the towel out and ask the pax if you can put it where the dog sits. I've been Uber'ing 5-6 months so far, and I've never even had a service dog in my car YET. So chances are, it'll be slim odds you'll even get a service dog. BUT IF YOU DO, it'll be WHAT? a 10-15 minute ride? it's not going to be the end of the world. the dog will not shed hundreds of hairs. they wont poop. They dog will most likely sit on the floor. There will be NO WORRY regarding a trained service dog. If there ARE some hairs on the seat or floor... stop at a sunoco, pay a buck to use their car vac.

Now here's some evil news...!!!
what WILL BE a problem... (AND A BIG PROBLEM) are these millennial whineybabies with these "so called" emotional support dogs. they'll email Uber and say you refused their service dog. they'll lie and say they are disabled. You're DONE. GONE.

believe me... disabled people with legitimate service dogs, like seeing eye dogs - those people ARE NOT going to be the pax that gets any of us disabled.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Ardery said:


> Exactly. Look how many people are complaining about transporting a dog that has been WELL TRAINED.


Look where? I see no complaints on here about taking service animals


> I've been Uber'ing 5-6 months so far, and I've never even had a service dog in my car YET.


I've been Uberlyfting 3 years and have not come across a service dog. It is estimated that service dogs make up just 0.025% of the dog population.


> what WILL BE a problem... (AND A BIG PROBLEM) are these millennial whineybabies with these "so called" emotional support dogs. they'll email Uber and say you refused their service dog. they'll lie and say they are disabled.


Correct. It is a problem: emo dog-owning pax falsely complain to Uber that their driver denied a service animal.


> You're DONE. GONE.


Incorrect. I have ride denied many emo dogs and I get reactivated after each suspension after I send Uberlyft video proof that the pax is lying and it was an emo dog, not a service dog.


> believe me... disabled people with legitimate service dogs, like seeing eye dogs - those people ARE NOT going to be the pax that gets any of us disabled.


I don't believe you. It is entirely possible and hopefully probable that a blind person with a guide dog would complain to Uber if they were denied service by an errant driver.


----------



## bobby747 (Dec 29, 2015)

i drive wav ..ada certifed in phila for wheel chair..over 8 x in rides black suv x. xl wav.
i cannot really read all this as to much tech.
throw the ball catch the ball. 
if they have real service dog ..THEY RIDE ......IF not they dontin 8000+ rides only 2 service dogs in my cars and about 3 in boxes going to airports on plane..mini dogs....1 cat

hey west palm beach..i used to live on singer island fla....worked in car business . customized cars near city place when it was a giant cadillac dealer...now they are on 45th st


----------



## Terysmit (Jun 17, 2017)

COMPANY POLICY wins


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> this pretty much covers Uber. Even if you can argue "travel service" being airline or bus, etc, we are a service establishment.
> 
> If you are that allergic to dog danger, then merely walking down the street would set off your allegies, or sitting at a restaurant on a seat that dog owner just sat in. If you are that allergic, your probably best to stay home or walk around in one of those bubbles. Or take allergy medicine...
> 
> ...


Allergies can be considered a valid disability covered under the ADA.

The reason disabilities are called disabilities is because they are disabling, meaning the person with them is unable to do certain things. If you are that allergic to dogs that you cannot be in a car with them, then you are unable to meet the basic minimum requirements for providing transportation service to the General Public, which would include other disabled people, possibly with service animals.

You could, however, Drive UberEats.


----------



## freddieman (Oct 24, 2016)

elelegido said:


> In the midst of the huge song and dance that Uberlyft makes out of we drivers allegedly having to take service dogs under the terms of the ADA, the threats they make to deactivate us, and the actual deactivations of drivers, it turns out that transportation companies are _not_ an included category regulated by the ADA. In spite of what Uberlyft claims, we are not required to take service animals under these regulations.
> 
> To briefly explain, the ADA is composed of three parts, or "titles". Title I covers discrimination by employers towards employees and therefore does not apply. Title II covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by any state or local governmet, i.e. places such as libraries, town halls, courts etc. Title III covers the access rights of the disabled with service dogs to places operated by private companies that provide access to the public, i.e. bars, movie theaters, doctor's offices, restaurants etc. It is under Title III that Uberlyft claims that we must give service to service animals, given that we operate private companies and the public accesses our vehicles.
> 
> ...


I always thought this. We drivers are not trained in this field.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

freddieman said:


> I always thought this. We drivers are not trained in this field.


What field?


----------

