# How do Uber drivers with Dog Allergies handles the new service dog requirement



## handiacefailure (Mar 12, 2017)

I'm curious as to how you guys handle this and if you have any rights.

I know someone that wants to start driving for Uber and on the last upgrade I had to agree to take service dogs even if I have a dog allergy. Not a fan of dogs in my car since I have two cats and when I transport them if I have recently transported my parents dogs and they pick up the scent, but I'd be willing to do it if I had a passenger with a dog.

My friend has a severe allergy to cats and dogs and if I have recxently transported my cats or my parents dogs in my car I have to vacuum it out good or take his car because the dandruff makes him sick and he has ridden in ubers before where he has gotten miserable if there have been dogs transported in the car

The agreement says they will perm. block you if you deny a service dog. Hopefully he won't run into that situation but if he did, could Uber legally do it? I know the ADA laws probably don't apply since we are contractors but I think he'd have a case with his situation.

I only drive for Uber but does Lyft have the same policy?


----------



## IERide (Jul 1, 2016)

Yes, Uber can, and does legally do it..
Does not mean you can’t challenge Uber and sue them.. but, since the driver agrees to the terms and their are laws about not providing service to protected classes (people with service dogs), it is doubtful the driver would win..
UNLESS..
It’s a pax with a FAKE service animal, of which there are far more of than people with actual service animals - then they would have a case.. Still years out of your life and probably not worth it unless your expensive attorney promises a big payout..


----------



## RiderOnTheStorm (Mar 17, 2017)

handiacefailure said:


> I'm curious as to how you guys handle this and if you have any rights.


"NO."

Unlike lots of questions people have, this one is simple to answer.

According to federal law, you have no rights regarding this.
Allergies are specifically mentioned in the law -- you get no exception.
Same thing for psychological (fear of animals) -- no exception.
Sorry!

If you have allergies to dogs (or people and their many contaminants, for that matter),
you can't really drive ridesharing such as Uber/Lyft. Well, you can of course.
But you will just have to suffer through it.

Not sure what you mean by "ADA laws probably don't apply".
It is the ADA laws that require you to transport service animals, no exceptions.
It totally applies.

Your friend should figure out something else to do; can't Uber.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

Good grief. I've driven almost 2,500 rides and only one service animal.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

handiacefailure said:


> I'm curious as to how you guys handle this and if you have any rights.
> 
> I know someone that wants to start driving for Uber and on the last upgrade I had to agree to take service dogs even if I have a dog allergy. Not a fan of dogs in my car since I have two cats and when I transport them if I have recently transported my parents dogs and they pick up the scent, but I'd be willing to do it if I had a passenger with a dog.
> 
> ...


It's not new, the ADA laws DO apply, and yes, Lyft is the same.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

handiacefailure said:


> I'm curious as to how you guys handle this and if you have any rights.
> 
> I know someone that wants to start driving for Uber and on the last upgrade I had to agree to take service dogs even if I have a dog allergy. Not a fan of dogs in my car since I have two cats and when I transport them if I have recently transported my parents dogs and they pick up the scent, but I'd be willing to do it if I had a passenger with a dog.
> 
> ...


I know a blind guy who wants to drive for Uber.

Life isnt Fair !


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Honestly how many people have died from a dog allergy anyway? Maybe a Runny nose or itchy eyes? It may not even be the dog or something the dog rolled around in. No anaphylactic shock


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Coachman said:


> Good grief. I've driven almost 2,500 rides and only one service animal.


Please don't try to confuse a service dog conversation with facts or reason!


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

handiacefailure said:


> I'm curious as to how you guys handle this and if you have any rights.


You have the right to ask them two questions;
1) Is that a service animal?
2)What task is the animal trained to perform?
You have a right to refuse if the person refuses to answer these questions or if they say it's an emotional support animal (not covered under ADA, but may be covered in certain states). Just be prepared to go to war with the companies as the passenger may lie and say you refused a service animal. GET A DASH CAM!!!

You have the right to charge a damage/cleaning fee if the animal causes extensive damage (scratches, chews, pukes, poops, etc.)



handiacefailure said:


> I know someone that wants to start driving for Uber and on the last upgrade I had to agree to take service dogs even if I have a dog allergy. Not a fan of dogs in my car since I have two cats and when I transport them if I have recently transported my parents dogs and they pick up the scent, but I'd be willing to do it if I had a passenger with a dog.
> 
> My friend has a severe allergy to cats and dogs and if I have recxently transported my cats or my parents dogs in my car I have to vacuum it out good or take his car because the dandruff makes him sick and he has ridden in ubers before where he has gotten miserable if there have been dogs transported in the car
> 
> The agreement says they will perm. block you if you deny a service dog. Hopefully he won't run into that situation but if he did, could Uber legally do it? I know the ADA laws probably don't apply since we are contractors but I think he'd have a case with his situation.


The ADA explicitly states that allergies are not a lawful reason to refuse a service animal. Yes Uber or Lyft can legally ban you. You accepted the service animal rider when you signed up (otherwise you would not be allowed to drive for them) which states that they can and will deactivate you for this.



handiacefailure said:


> I only drive for Uber but does Lyft have the same policy?


Yes. This isn't just some other dumb Uber or Lyft policy. This is the law of the land and it is not a new requirement. If you delete both apps and start your own car service and refuse a service animal, you are liable to being fined, a lawsuit, and losing your business license.

There are many threads on this subject and every now and then, someone thinks they have a way around the law. There isn't one. If you don't like it, then you should maybe call your congressman to have the law changed. I don't advocate taking away the rights of people with legitimate service animals, but something does need to be done to weed out the fakers.


----------



## handiacefailure (Mar 12, 2017)

This is crazy they have to transport someone if he has legit allergies. I don't understand why muslim cab drivers in some cities are allowed to refuse to transport dogs because of religion reasons but someone with a legit animal allergy can't. I'm sure like people abusing service/ESA's there would be some drivers who will claim allergies to avoid transporting dogs but if they have a legit doctors excuse they should be exempt.

And I'm sure there are people that fake animal allergies as well even though my friend isn't one. I've flown on airplanes with my cats before and get upgraded due to my status a lot and a couple times have had seatmates claim they had deadly allergies to cats and both times when they found out they ranked below me on the upgrade list and were told by the flight attendant they would gladly move them but it would be to coach suddenly they could tolerate the cats I did have one seatmate in coach onetime whose eyes were watering and she had no issues moving.

I wonder if peanut allergies are covered under the ada since animal allergies aren't. This seems to be a common problem


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

handiacefailure said:


> This is crazy they have to transport someone if he has legit allergies.


Yes.



handiacefailure said:


> I don't understand why muslim cab drivers in some cities are allowed to refuse to transport dogs because of religion reasons b


They aren't allowed, you're mistaken.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

handiacefailure said:


> This is crazy they have to transport someone if he has legit allergies. I don't understand why muslim cab drivers in some cities are allowed to refuse to transport dogs because of religion reasons but someone with a legit animal allergy can't.


Religious or cultural objections are not valid reasons to refuse service animals either.

You need to just go read Uber's policy. It's on the website, and it's quite clearly worded.

Air transportation is a different arena, and different rules apply. Your experiences in flying, and what any of us think is "fair," are irrelevant. Uber follows the law that has been in force since 1990 or so.


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

handiacefailure said:


> I wonder if peanut allergies are covered under the ada since animal allergies aren't. This seems to be a common problem


A person with nut allergy can die from their allergy and there are laws and regulations to protect them. An allergy to pet dander is an inconvenience, even an allergy that is severe. If your friend's allergies are so severe that it will kill him, a pet owner is likely just as dangerous to him...

A disability that requires a service animal is more than an inconvenience, it is a DISABILITY!

My god what is so hard to understand about this. Take the damn dog or don't. If it is a service dog and you don't take it. You are in the wrong!

There are dozens, of threads dealing with service dogs, search them out. This us such a tired subject. The federal law protects people with disabilities, just know you aren't going to win. Uber MO is one warning and then deactivation.

Your friend's temporary
sneezing and itchy eyes is nothing compared to to the challenges people who NEED their service animals to perform everyday tasks.

5000k plus rides I've had 2 service dogs. One, she called and asked if it was okay and only later told me it was a service dog. She said she knows the law but still always makes sure the driver is okay with it.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

handiacefailure said:


> This is crazy they have to transport someone if he has legit allergies. I don't understand why muslim cab drivers in some cities are allowed to refuse to transport dogs because of religion reasons but someone with a legit animal allergy can't. I'm sure like people abusing service/ESA's there would be some drivers who will claim allergies to avoid transporting dogs but if they have a legit doctors excuse they should be exempt.
> 
> And I'm sure there are people that fake animal allergies as well even though my friend isn't one. I've flown on airplanes with my cats before and get upgraded due to my status a lot and a couple times have had seatmates claim they had deadly allergies to cats and both times when they found out they ranked below me on the upgrade list and were told by the flight attendant they would gladly move them but it would be to coach suddenly they could tolerate the cats I did have one seatmate in coach onetime whose eyes were watering and she had no issues moving.
> 
> I wonder if peanut allergies are covered under the ada since animal allergies aren't. This seems to be a common problem


I have yet to hear of a trained service peanut.  Either way, peanut allergies can be deadly and animal allergies (not including insects such as bees, etc.) aren't.

Someone faking an animal allergy in this case is moot, as you're required to take the service animal whether or not you are allergic to it.

See this thread and it pretty much details the law as it stands...

https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-ultimate-service-dog-guide.253888/


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

I got pretzels on a flight once because someone on board had a peanut allergy.

Never seen anyone not take their pet on a flight cause someone had a dog/cat allergy.


----------



## darkshy77 (Sep 28, 2015)

Take Benadryl and pick them up!


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

wk1102 said:


> A person with nut allergy can die from their allergy and there are laws and regulations to protect them. An allergy to pet dander is an inconvenience, even an allergy that is severe. If your friend's allergies are so severe that it will kill him, a pet owner is likely just as dangerous to him...
> 
> A disability that requires a service animal is more than an inconvenience, it is a DISABILITY!
> 
> ...


An allergy is capable of being life threatening. Let's not try to pretend that allergies can't be serious. They can be. Not all of them are easy to control, either.

That being said, allergies are considered disabilities. The word disability means you are not able to do certain things because of a medical or psychological condition. If you are blind, you can't have a driving job. If you are deaf, working a switchboard for a large company is probably not your calling. If you have no legs, you cannot play professional football. Different professions call for different tasks and accommodations, and if you are unable to do those tasks or make those accommodations for your customers or bosses or whatever, your disability preclude you from that particular job.

Any job that has to do with dealing with the general public in person will have the same rule regarding service animals. Further, most jobs have to accommodate employees with service animals, as well. If you think you are safe and sound with a nice job in an office in your own little cubicle, it is always possible that someone with a service dog will end up in the cubicle next to yours. Now, in that particular situation you could probably petition the boss, provided it doesn't alter either of your abilities to perform your duties conveniently, to move one or the other of you to a different area to lessen the effects of the dog on your allergies. If it's a small office, you're SOL.

This has been the law for a very long time.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

So the law is only 28 years old. Brand new! 

Seriously though, the answers here have been very good. You'll find a lot more info at https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-ultimate-service-dog-guide.253888/, but the information that allergies, fear, and religious objections are not valid reasons to deny a service dog is correct. I think the question/confusion on if the ADA covers drivers or not comes from the difference between Title I and (mostly) Title III of the ADA. Title III is what covers service dogs, Title I covers employees. If we were actually employees, then someone with an actual disability to animal dander (which very few people actually rise to the level of), would be able to be moved to another position (under the ADA reasonable accommodations). I think this was the part he was asking about. Bottom line, because we're contractors we aren't covered by it.

If your friend is one of those very rare few who is so allergic that they can't be around it at all, they certainly shouldn't drive any ride shares. Not just because of the off chance that they might have to take a service dog (and they would if they got one, but they are rare too), but more importantly because anyone that allergic would react badly to the dander that will be on pax who have pets too.


----------



## handiacefailure (Mar 12, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> So the law is only 28 years old. Brand new!
> 
> Seriously though, the answers here have been very good. You'll find a lot more info at https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-ultimate-service-dog-guide.253888/, but the information that allergies, fear, and religious objections are not valid reasons to deny a service dog is correct. I think the question/confusion on if the ADA covers drivers or not comes from the difference between Title I and (mostly) Title III of the ADA. Title III is what covers service dogs, Title I covers employees. If we were actually employees, then someone with an actual disability to animal dander (which very few people actually rise to the level of), would be able to be moved to another position (under the ADA reasonable accommodations). I think this was the part he was asking about. Bottom line, because we're contractors we aren't covered by it.
> 
> If your friend is one of those very rare few who is so allergic that they can't be around it at all, they certainly shouldn't drive any ride shares. Not just because of the off chance that they might have to take a service dog (and they would if they got one, but they are rare too), but more importantly because anyone that allergic would react badly to the dander that will be on pax who have pets too.


I told him I doubt it would be an issue. I have never had a service dog in all the time I've been doing UBER and have had a cat pick up once and the cat was in a carrier and another time someone had a small dog on a leash and it sat on her lap and the passenger asked me if I was ok with it.

I'm going to tell him if he does have a service dog it will probably be a once in his driving career incident and to just crack the windows in the front.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

tohunt4me said:


> I know a blind guy who wants to drive for Uber.
> 
> Life isnt Fair !


Well, I guess they could shoot for an autonomous emergency backup driver position. I mean it's not like their current drivers, well at least one for sure, did any better than a blind driver could.

What, too soon?



Pawtism said:


> If we were actually employees, then someone with an actual disability to animal dander (which very few people actually rise to the level of), would be able to be moved to another position (under the ADA reasonable accommodations). I think this was the part he was asking about. Bottom line, because we're contractors we aren't covered by it.


This issue has me shaking my head at Uber for how stupid it is, not because they're enforcing the service dog law, far from it, I think it's necessary, no, what gets me about uber is that they could do away with driver angst over this issue by simply giving drivers the option to opt out of transporting service animals, and then pay a high surge rate for transporting them, and offer the rides to drivers who haven't opted out. It's not like there's a lot of service animal ride requests on any given day. Uber has more than enough money to do this, and they should.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> Well, I guess they could shoot for an autonomous emergency backup driver position. I mean it's not like their current drivers, well at least one for sure, did any better than a blind driver could.
> 
> What, too soon?
> 
> This issue has me shaking my head at Uber for how stupid it is, not because they're enforcing the service dog law, far from it, I think it's necessary, no, what gets me about uber is that they could do away with driver angst over this issue by simply giving drivers the option to opt out of transporting service animals, and then pay a high surge rate for transporting them, and offer the rides to drivers who haven't opted out. It's not like there's a lot of service animal ride requests on any given day. Uber has more than enough money to do this, and they should.


They're not allowed to be part of you breaking the law, either.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> They're not allowed to be part of you breaking the law, either.


As that statement doesn't really match with either of the posts to which you replied you've managed to completely lose me.

If as a driver you opted out and a ping is never sent your way neither you, nor uber has broken any law, and presumably the surge rate uber offers drivers who haven't opted out, would be high enough to ensure someone takes that ride.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> As that statement doesn't really match with either of the posts to which you replied you've managed to completely lose me.
> 
> If as a driver you opted out and a ping is never sent your way neither you, nor uber has brken any law, and presumably the surge rate uber offers would be high enough to ensure someone takes that ride.


Opting out would be against the law, since you are not allowed to opt out by federal law, which was entirely based on the Constitution. Doing so is called discriminating against the disabled.

If Uber was to allow you to opt out they would be party to that. It is against federal law and the Constitution to be party to it.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Comparing peanut allergies to people who have allergies to dogs is like comparing apples to rocket propelled grenades.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Opting out would be against the law, since you are not allowed to opt out by federal law, which was entirely based on the Constitution. Doing so is called discriminating against the disabled.


Yeah that's a whole lot of opinion there. If you're not sent a ping you've broken no law. You're gonna play hell trying to convince me otherwise. The requirement is that service dog has to be taken, if it's taken there is no violation of the law, and any interpretation to the contrary seems at best pretty fanciful to me.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> Yeah that's a whole lot of opinion there. If you're not sent a ping you've broken no law. You're gonna play hell trying to convince me otherwise. The requirement is that service dog has to be taken, if it's taken there is no violation of the law, and any interpretation to the contrary seems at best pretty fanciful to me.


Uber has to send you the Ping, or else they are in violation of federal and Constitutional law.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Uber has to send you the Ping, or else they are in violation of federal and Constitutional law.
> 
> Why is this so hard for you to understand?


It's ludicrous to assume that uber has to send a specific ping to a specific driver. That's not how laws work. The requirement of the law is the service animal has to be taken, that's what the law establishes.

It then falls on uber to accomplish that in any way they see fit so long as the requirement, the service animal is transported, is met.


----------



## handiacefailure (Mar 12, 2017)

I told my friend he'll probably never even run into that issue but if he does just roll the windows down half way (weather permitting) and he said he could tolerate it if he did that. Apparently being in such a small enclosed space with a dog or cat is really hell on his allergies.

Hopefully if he does encounter a service or ESA and tells the passenger he is going to crack the windows due to his allergies they won't make an issue out of it or even offer to page another uber. I don't think the passenger could require a driver with allergies to roll up his windows.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Uber has to send you the Ping, or else they are in violation of federal and Constitutional law.
> 
> Why is this so hard for you to understand?


What you're posting isn't hard to understand, far from it, and my responses have made it clear I completely understand what you're posting.

That said your opinion is noted, and on it's face makes absolutely no sense given what you're stating would require uber to send a ping to a specific driver to handle that request based on what critera? Their criteria for sending a ping is already convoluted, but that's beside the point anyway.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that as long as the animal is transported no violation of the law occurred, and having said that it stands to reason, on that fact alone, Uber is able to handle which driver/s it sends the ping to so long as the animal is transported.

And one more time because you seem not to have gotten it the first go around. Laws that don't specify exactly how something is to be accomplished leave it to the entitity to figure that out for themselves so long as the letter of the law is met.

That said can you point me to where the law specifically states that uber has to send a ping to a specific, or any driver for that matter?

Because if you can't do that, and you can't, you should just cede the point and acknowledge it's left to uber as to how it accomplishes it.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> What you're posting isn't hard to understand, far from it, and my responses have made it clear I completely understand what you're posting.
> 
> That said your opinion is noted, and on it's face makes absolutely no sense given what you're stating would require uber to send a ping to a specific driver to handle that request based on what critera? Their criteria for sending a ping is already convoluted, but that's beside the point anyway.
> 
> ...


I think the part that is getting missed in translation is that you're assuming that there is some way for Uber to know who has a service dog and Suze knows that they can't possibly know that. The ADA specifically states that we don't have to notify that we have a service dog. So, I order a ride and you who have "opted out" so uber doesn't send you a request take my ride (having no idea I have a service dog) and when you get there.. we'll, you're in for a surprise lol. See the problem? Uber can't possibly know who all has service dogs or not, and they can't make us tell them, so your plan can't possibly work.

Now, you're not the first to suggest such a plan, so I bet your next thought is "well why can't they change it so we have to tell them?" So let me pre answer that, it's because of the potential for discrimination. Someone doesn't have to call a restaurant and let them know they are *insert race here* when making a reservation. For the same reason, it's not supposed to matter.

Bottom line, many people have suggested this type of setup and it always leads to the potential for, if not outright, discrimination and thus is flat not allowed.

As many have pointed out though, service dogs are fairly rare, I'm not sure why people freak out about it so much.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> The ADA specifically states that we don't have to notify that we have a service dog.


I've read the DOJ guidelines linked to by the ADA a few times now, and I have yet to read anything that covers this. Can you cite where the law states that requesting notification is prohibited?

I've seen nothing that would prohibit uber from creating a new class of ride specifically for service animals, and that's the only thing keeping them from knowing when an service animal requires a ride. Easy enough to fix. Even if service animal requests aren't required to to be notified would requesting a service animal ride under a service animal class ride be considered a mandatory notification or a voluntary notification?

I would say it's arguable one way or another and it's not like Uber is afraid to skirt the law if that's what it felt it takes to do what it wants.

Obviously it finds it easier to just let chance rule instead of taking action that could get rid of a lot of driver angst over this issue.



Pawtism said:


> See the problem?


I see the current problem sure, but the idea I suggested doesn't rely on the current state of affairs.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> I've read the DOJ guidelines linked to by the ADA a few times now, and I have yet to read anything that covers this. Can you cite where the law states that requesting notification is prohibited?
> 
> I've seen nothing that would prohibit uber from creating a new class of ride specifically for service animals, and that's the only thing keeping them from knowing when an service animal requires a ride. Easy enough to fix. Even if service animal requests aren't required to to be notified would requesting a service animal ride under a service animal class ride be considered a mandatory notification or a voluntary notification?
> 
> ...


It has been decided, I believe, in case law. In asking someone if they have a service dog, they would essentially be asking someone if they have a disability. That is against the law.

Here's the deal. Businesses are not allowed to charge a Handler of a service dog more because of the accommodation of the service dog. Additionally, they are not allowed to treat someone with a service dog any differently than they would treat anyone without one. You are supposed to act as if the dog doesn't exist. This has been the subject of many court battles, and the people running up against the dogs have consistently lost, so long as the dog is a legitimate service dog. And believe me, the person who's going to go to the mat and take you to court and make you sorry you were ever born, is going to be the person with a legitimate service dog. The most anyone else will do is have you deactivated.

Further, if Uber were to allow drivers to opt out of taking service animals, this could, quite probably, because you are not the first driver who doesn't want to have to deal with shedding hair or any of the other issues that you would not have with a service animal but might with a non service animal, and it would take longer for the Handler of a service animal to get a ride. Inconveniencing someone with a service animal any more than they need to be, which is what this would do, is treating them differently from someone without a service animal, and is against the law. They are not allowed to contribute to having these customers wait any longer for a ride than anyone else would.

Uber has already been sued over this issue in a class action lawsuit that they settled out of court. Essentially, from what any of us have heard, aside from whatever monies were paid and PR damage was done, Uber basically only had to agree to follow the law. That was it. This is how it is done.

You saying, "They could do this, or that...," over and over doesn't make it so. Our own Pawtism has a service dog. Now, he might not be the type that would sue you and Uber over a single driver refusing to take him when they showed up to pick him up, so long as the next one did. But I bet you he knows at least 10 people who would. And they would win, too.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Kodyhead said:


> Honestly how many people have died from a dog allergy anyway? Maybe a Runny nose or itchy eyes? It may not even be the dog or something the dog rolled around in. No anaphylactic shock


But why SHOULD they have to suffer through

It will cease to amaze me that because someone needs a dog to make them feel happy that they automatically become more important then someone that doesn't

I have NEVER agreed with this policy one bit.

I HATE they idea of a filthy slobbering shedding dog in my car....why ate my rights any less then some weak minded person that cant cope with life without a dog

People that legitimately need a service dog because of sight issues....well I am sure there are plenty of drivers that love dogs and wouldn't have an issue. Uber should just put a notification that the ride has a service dog and give the driver the OPTION to decline

It's not that freaking hard



handiacefailure said:


> This is crazy they have to transport someone if he has legit allergies. I don't understand why muslim cab drivers in some cities are allowed to refuse to transport dogs because of religion reasons but someone with a legit animal allergy can't. I'm sure like people abusing service/ESA's there would be some drivers who will claim allergies to avoid transporting dogs but if they have a legit doctors excuse they should be exempt.
> 
> And I'm sure there are people that fake animal allergies as well even though my friend isn't one. I've flown on airplanes with my cats before and get upgraded due to my status a lot and a couple times have had seatmates claim they had deadly allergies to cats and both times when they found out they ranked below me on the upgrade list and were told by the flight attendant they would gladly move them but it would be to coach suddenly they could tolerate the cats I did have one seatmate in coach onetime whose eyes were watering and she had no issues moving.
> 
> I wonder if peanut allergies are covered under the ada since animal allergies aren't. This seems to be a common problem


And you feel OK inconveniencing these people....people that paid for their tickets just like you did because you cant bear to be separated from your stupid cats???

Seriously the arrogance of people never ceases to amaze me

Your the one that is upsetting the norm with having to bring your cats where they dont really belong so why do you feel it's ok to make everyone to adjust to YOU



Pawtism said:


> I think the part that is getting missed in translation is that you're assuming that there is some way for Uber to know who has a service dog and Suze knows that they can't possibly know that. The ADA specifically states that we don't have to notify that we have a service dog. So, I order a ride and you who have "opted out" so uber doesn't send you a request take my ride (having no idea I have a service dog) and when you get there.. we'll, you're in for a surprise lol. See the problem? Uber can't possibly know who all has service dogs or not, and they can't make us tell them, so your plan can't possibly work.
> 
> Now, you're not the first to suggest such a plan, so I bet your next thought is "well why can't they change it so we have to tell them?" So let me pre answer that, it's because of the potential for discrimination. Someone doesn't have to call a restaurant and let them know they are *insert race here* when making a reservation. For the same reason, it's not supposed to matter.
> 
> ...


Because I have rights also

I pay for the car

I clean the car

I pay for the insurance on the car

I should have the right to not allow a destructive animal in my car if I dont want one. Why are the rights of people that dont like dogs and dont want them in their property any less important


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> I've read the DOJ guidelines linked to by the ADA a few times now, and I have yet to read anything that covers this. Can you cite where the law states that requesting notification is prohibited?
> 
> I've seen nothing that would prohibit uber from creating a new class of ride specifically for service animals, and that's the only thing keeping them from knowing when an service animal requires a ride. Easy enough to fix. Even if service animal requests aren't required to to be notified would requesting a service animal ride under a service animal class ride be considered a mandatory notification or a voluntary notification?
> 
> ...


To understand that, you'll first need to know what "case law" is. Basically "case law" is where courts have heard arguments about what something in the law means, and if it applies to a specific situation (makes a ruling about it, which can be appealed higher and higher, potentially up to the supreme court, for example Roe v. Wade is the case law that effectively says that abortions are legal). This case law actually has a precedent (a "previous ruling", basically) all the way back to the earliest discrimination laws (racial). The same way I can't point to a sentence in the law that says "you can't make people making dinner reservations tell you what race they are as a condition of the dinner reservation", I likewise, can't point to a sentence that says "you can't make people tell you if they have a service dog". What I can do is try to find the case for you where it got ruled that service dog handlers don't have to. It was with a hotel, and when I get a moment if I can find it I'll link it here.

This is one of many reasons why "internet lawyers" fail so badly. They don't have the foundational knowledge in place to truly understand the legal system as a whole. It's not anything bad about them (in fact, I applaud people wanting to know more about their legal system), but the very first year in law school is pretty much all foundational stuff, because that stuff is required to understand the rest in context. I suppose it would be like trying to understand why vinegar and baking soda react the way they do with each other without first understanding what a acid and a base are. I'll try to find the case for you, or if you really don't believe me, you're welcome to find your own lawyer and ask them. Stop and think it through though, I think the analogy I used of the restaurant is really very common sense (I purposely try to keep things on a "layman's" level because I understand not everyone has legal training).

As for the "current state of affairs" thing, I anticipated that being your next thought, and have already addressed it. Ask the two questions if you're concerned about if it's a real service dog or not (believe me that I hate the fakes more than most people do), other than that, it would be discriminatory (and in most states, an outright crime) to interfere with a service dog, so why would you want to?



SuzeCB said:


> It has been decided, I believe, in case law. In asking someone if they have a service dog, they would essentially be asking someone if they have a disability. That is against the law.
> 
> Here's the deal. Businesses are not allowed to charge a Handler of a service dog more because of the accommodation of the service dog. Additionally, they are not allowed to treat someone with a service dog any differently than they would treat anyone without one. You are supposed to act as if the dog doesn't exist. This has been the subject of many court battles, and the people running up against the dogs have consistently lost, so long as the dog is a legitimate service dog. And believe me, the person who's going to go to the mat and take you to court and make you sorry you were ever born, is going to be the person with a legitimate service dog. The most anyone else will do is have you deactivated.
> 
> ...


While I probably wouldn't unless someone was being directly discriminatory (outright rude for example), one of my primary duties is fighting for my clients who (as I work with a disability advocacy firm) feel they have been discriminated against. I'll admit that some I totally agree with and back completely, while others I think are probably being a little "snowflake-ish" and are taking what is otherwise a misunderstanding too far. However, my duty is to help them all, and I do so, even if I don't agree with them. So I've assisted over 10 people thus far.  All but one won (or settled, which is effectively a win), and their case was flimsy at best anyway. While I personally don't like to take an L, in this case, I think it was the right call (and if I'd been the judge, I'd have ruled against me too on that one, lol). The cases that are still ongoing will likely be wins (or settlements) as well.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> But why SHOULD they have to suffer through
> 
> It will cease to amaze me that because someone needs a dog to make them feel happy that they automatically become more important then someone that doesn't
> 
> ...


I think you're confusing ESAs (the dogs that make you feel happy) with Service Animals (Epilepsy Alert, Guide Dogs, Sensory Overload (often called Autism Dogs), Allergen Dogs, Diabetes Alert, you know, dogs that have actual tasks that can literally be the difference between life and death). You stated "It will cease to amaze me that because someone needs a dog to make them feel happy that they automatically become more important then someone that doesn't" which leads me to this conclusion. ESAs (the dogs that make you feel happy) are NOT service dogs and you are not required to take them. You clearly have never been around a real service dog, as if you had, you wouldn't describe them as "destructive". You're creating your own biases, and then using them to qualify your argument. Stop and think it through first. What is it you are actually against? ESAs? I'll actually agree with you on that one. Fake Service Dogs (which may or may not be "destructive", but at least have the potential to be)? Again, I'll agree with you on that. Are you actually against someone having a life saving device with them? If so, then you are probably discriminatory and really should rethink your life. I'd like to believe you aren't actually against that though.

Take an epileptic for example. Since you don't seem to really know much about how actual service dogs work, let me explain. The dog, somehow (only about 1/3 of dogs are even capable of doing it, I'd be lying if I said I completely understood how), can tell when a seizure is coming and can give a 5 minute or so warning prior to it happening. This gives the epileptic time to get to a safe spot, let someone nearby know what is about to happen (or even call 911 for themselves), and get into a safe position (put in a mouth guard, lay down somewhere safe, etc). That is literally life changing (and saving) for them. When you say things like "It will cease to amaze me that because someone needs a dog to make them feel happy that they automatically become more important then someone that doesn't" that translates to "I'm so arrogant and self important that a little bit of fur on my floorboard that would take 1 minute to vacuum up is much more important than that person's life" (to someone who hasn't recognized that you might be mistaking ESAs and service dogs, anyway). You have to understand, this is literally life and death. No offense, but yeah, you can deal with a little fur on your floorboard. Be thankful you don't have to go through life as they do.

Btw, as for the "I pay for the car", their service dog is worth more than most cars (at least those being used for Uber/Lyft). You voluntarily entered your car into public service, if you don't want it in public service, quit going online with Uber/Lyft and it will be a private car once again. Stop and think through what you are actually against.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> I think you're confusing ESAs (the dogs that make you feel happy) with Service Animals (Epilepsy Alert, Guide Dogs, Sensory Overload (often called Autism Dogs), Allergen Dogs, Diabetes Alert, you know, dogs that have actual tasks that can literally be the difference between life and death). You stated "It will cease to amaze me that because someone needs a dog to make them feel happy that they automatically become more important then someone that doesn't" which leads me to this conclusion. ESAs (the dogs that make you feel happy) are NOT service dogs and you are not required to take them. You clearly have never been around a real service dog, as if you had, you wouldn't describe them as "destructive". You're creating your own biases, and then using them to qualify your argument. Stop and think it through first. What is it you are actually against? ESAs? I'll actually agree with you on that one. Fake Service Dogs (which may or may not be "destructive", but at least have the potential to be)? Again, I'll agree with you on that. Are you actually against someone having a life saving device with them? If so, then you are probably discriminatory and really should rethink your life. I'd like to believe you aren't actually against that though.
> 
> Take an epileptic for example. Since you don't seem to really know much about how actual service dogs work, let me explain. The dog, somehow (only about 1/3 of dogs are even capable of doing it, I'd be lying if I said I completely understood how), can tell when a seizure is coming and can give a 5 minute or so warning prior to it happening. This gives the epileptic time to get to a safe spot, let someone nearby know what is about to happen (or even call 911 for themselves), and get into a safe position (put in a mouth guard, lay down somewhere safe, etc). That is literally life changing (and saving) for them. When you say things like "It will cease to amaze me that because someone needs a dog to make them feel happy that they automatically become more important then someone that doesn't" that translates to "I'm so arrogant and self important that a little bit of fur on my floorboard that would take 1 minute to vacuum up is much more important that person's life" (to someone who hasn't recognized that you might be mistaking ESAs and service dogs, anyway). You have to understand, this is literally life and death. No offense, but yeah, you can deal with a little fur on your floorboard. Be thankful you don't have to go through life as they do.
> 
> Btw, as for the "I pay for the car", their service dog is worth more than most cars (at least those being used for Uber/Lyft). You voluntarily entered your car into public service, if you don't want it in public service, quit going online with Uber/Lyft and it will be a private car once again. Stop and think through what you are actually against.


What I am against is people that think their circumstances are more important then mine and go so far as to go to court to force others to do things they don't want to do.

I understand that certain disabilities use service animals.... that doesn't automatically mean that they can trample the rights of others.

I get annoyed when people think their circumstances mean they can sue to make everyone else adjust and placate them

Its attitudes like that that created a situation that makes Uber and Lyft impose the Draconian Rules that EVERYONE has to accept animals in their cars....regardless of their desire.

Why should I be forced to vacuum up fur when I should be allowed to simply opt out of that ride and let someone else have it if they want it. Because the extra minute or two the person would have to wait is too much of a burden?

If I go to a restaurant and order my food with special requests I accept I will have to wait a little extra to eat because I ordered outside the norm.....I dont complain about it

I will never see your point because I at the most base level will never agree that it was right for one group of people to sue their way to imposing their circumstances on people and creating a situation where someone can get terminated because they don't want their personal property damaged


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> what gets me about uber is that they could do away with driver angst over this issue by simply giving drivers the option to opt out of transporting service animals,


This would be illegal, it would be tje same, in the eyes of the law, as opting out of recieving requests from Jewish or Asian people. 


Wonkytonk said:


> If as a driver you opted out and a ping is never sent your way neither you, nor uber has broken any law,


The point of the law is to ensure disabled people who need service animals are not discriminated against. If we are given the option to "opt out" we are discriminating.



RedSteel said:


> It will cease to amaze me that because someone needs a dog to make them feel happy that they automatically become more important then someone that doesn't
> 
> I have NEVER agreed with this policy one bit.


This is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with the ADA and service animals.



RedSteel said:


> Its attitudes like that that created a situation that makes Uber and Lyft impose the Draconian Rules that EVERYONE has to accept animals in their cars....


It isn't Uber and Lyft who made this decision. It is the federal government.



RedSteel said:


> If I go to a restaurant and order my food with special requests I accept I will have to wait a little extra to eat because I ordered outside the norm.....I dont complain about it


What if you had to wait to be seated because of your ethnicity?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> What I am against is people that think their circumstances are more important then mine and go so far as to go to court to force others to do things they don't want to do.
> 
> I understand that certain disabilities use service animals.... that doesn't automatically mean that they can trample the rights of others.
> 
> ...


It's actually been the law for 28 years, the reason people went to court was because people weren't following the law, not to create the law. It's been that way for quite some time now, but as is typical for Uber, they thought they were above the law (and found out quickly that isn't so). Everyone has to follow the law, you make it sound like the disabled people went to court to try to make a new law or something. I don't like that I have to come to a complete stop when there is no one else at a 4 way stop, but alas, that's the law.

As for the the delay argument, I don't think you're seeing the big picture. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you were allowed to opt out. You seem to think it would be a couple of minutes. Let's explore that. I need to get to work, so I order an Uber. You come to me (I had to wait 4 minutes let's say for you to get there), and see I have a service dog. You "opt out" and presumably they'd have a system in place that would pop the ping to another driver. That driver is 6 minutes away and comes (I've been waiting 10 minutes now, plus the minute or so for you to "opt out"). Oh, they decide to opt out too. The next driver is 8 minutes away, but doesn't do trips over 7 minutes, so rejects. The next driver is 10 minutes away, and is actually willing to come (must be a full timer or on a quest or something). Now it's been 22 minutes or so, and they are actually willing to take me. My 4 minute pickup became a 22 minute pick up and I'm now late for work. That doesn't even cover situations where there is only one driver in the area. Does that explain the problem a little bit better?

You want to create these false biases because you don't truly understand the issues at play. You think "it's just an extra couple of minutes" but it's not. It's discrimination, and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting it. I hope now that you can see how it would actually play out, you'll realize that discrimination is just plain wrong.



wk1102 said:


> This would be illegal, it would be tje same, in the eyes of the law, as opting out of recieving requests from Jewish or Asian people.
> 
> The point of the law is to ensure disabled people who need service animals are not discriminated against. If we are given the option to "opt out" we are discriminating.
> 
> ...


Exactly, that's the quickest and easiest way to check yourself on discrimination. Substitute "service dog" for any other discriminatory factor such as race, or another medical device, such as hearing aid. Then repeat your statement and see if it makes sense. "I shouldn't have to take a service animal." becomes "I shouldn't have to take an Asian person" (that doesn't seem right?) or "I shouldn't have to take someone with a hearing aid" (nor does that?). If they don't seem right, then they probably aren't right. Should we be able to refuse someone because they are Asian? Of course not! Should we be able to refuse someone because they have a hearing aid? Of course not! Should we be able to refuse someone because they have a service dog? Of course not!


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> What I can do is try to find the case for you where it got ruled that service dog handlers don't have to. It was with a hotel, and when I get a moment if I can find it I'll link it here.


Please do if you get a chance.

Airlines currently request advance notice. I just checked with one of the largest national carriers they're requesting 48 to 24 hours advance notice, they're also suggesting that pax with service animals notify them upon the completion of booking.

Frankly there's nothing unreasonable about that.

If airlines, and clearly at least one major player is, I don't think it's a stretch for Uber to do it.

And here's the thing if they do it, and do it right, it would have the side effect of reducing the number of fraudulent service animals for pickups.

Add the additional class of drive, and on requesting display the consequence of fraudulently attempting to access service animal services for a non-service animal and requiring the pax to acknowledge and continue.

That plus the fact they'll be a record every time a pax fraudulently attempts to access those services so that they can be charged separately for each offense should be a major deterrent from requesting service fraudulently. That's a win for everyone.

That would actually take a lot of stress off pax with service animals wondering if they'll have a difficult time with a driver at the curb.

All I see are positives for pax traveling with service animals here, with little to no inconvenience.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

wk1102 said:


> This would be illegal, it would be tje same, in the eyes of the law, as opting out of recieving requests from Jewish or Asian people.
> 
> The point of the law is to ensure disabled people who need service animals are not discriminated against. If we are given the option to "opt out" we are discriminating.
> 
> ...


Completely different and inane analogy

Ethnicity does not create special circumstances out of the norm

Special requests do


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

wk1102 said:


> The point of the law is to ensure disabled people who need service animals are not discriminated against. If we are given the option to "opt out" we are discriminating.


The point of the law is to ensure that service animals be transported. If the service animal is transported seamlessly then the law has succeeded. This is kind of a slippery slope argument because if you're going to argue this, what's to stop someone from arguing that passing on a ping that's associated with a request from a pax with a service animal could also be illegal? You wouldn't argue that because reasonably if one doesn't know the ping was associated with a service animal request how could you be responsible for breaking the law? So lets extend that if you never get a ping for a service support animal how can you be accused of breaking the law in the first place?

If you note a preference for no animals in your vehicle, and uber honors that request and forwards the ping to a driver without that preference, and the service animal gets a ride, no harm no foul. That's just one more in a myriad of floating criteria uber utilizes in determining which way to route a ping for any given pax.

In addition to that how would you prove a law was broken if the intent of the law is to secure transportation for a service animal and the service animal successfully requested, and received that transportation. The process is seamless to pax neither they nor the agencies involved even have a clue what's going on in the background, but more importantly if the intent of the law - service animal gets a ride - is met why would they even care.


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> Airlines currently request advance notice.


Commercial planes have their own law re: disabilities.

The Air Carrier Access Act.

*Q37. Do commercial airlines have to comply with the ADA?
A*. No. The Air Carrier Access Act is the Federal law that protects the rights of people with disabilities in air travel. For information or to file a complaint, contact the U.S. Department of Transportation, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, at 202-366-2220.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RiderOnTheStorm said:


> "NO."
> 
> According to federal law, you have no rights regarding this.
> Allergies are specifically mentioned in the law -- you get no exception.
> ...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The first line contains the short answer; the remaining lines, a brief explanation.



JimKE said:


> Please don't try to confuse a service dog conversation *the law* with facts or reason!


FIFY



RynoHawk said:


> The ADA explicitly states that allergies are not a lawful reason to refuse a service animal.
> 
> something does need to be done to weed out the fakers.


..............all of the above...............................



handiacefailure said:


> This is crazy they have to transport someone if he has legit allergies.
> 
> muslim cab drivers in some cities are allowed to refuse to transport dogs because of religion reasons


It might be "crazy", but it IS the law.

In most jurisdictions, any cab driver can refuse to transport an animal that is not a service animal. Some jurisdictions do restrict the right of refusal to animals that are not enclosed in a carrier, but almost any cab driver can refuse to transport a non-service animal.

There have been controversies over Moslem cab drivers' refusal to transport passengers who were carrying alcohol in closed containers, but, the regulators have ruled that those drivers can not refuse to do that for that reason. The same goes for refusing to transport openly gay people or women whom the driver considers "immodestly dressed".



JimKE said:


> Religious or cultural objections are not valid reasons to refuse service animals either.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^and this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



wk1102 said:


> Uber MO is one warning and then deactivation.


F*ub*a*r* _*actually will give you a *__*warning*_? As I read it, and, as I have read several complaints on various Boards, it is De-Activation Station, No Questions Asked; even for the first offence.

While the one warning is certainly fair, I would understand why the corporations would have a No Questions Asked policy and send reminders periodically. There are more than a few in this demographic who will sue at the slightest "provocation". The abundance of do-gooder organisations who will cover the legal costs make it even easier.



RedSteel said:


> But why SHOULD they have to suffer through
> 
> I have NEVER agreed with this policy one bit. I HATE they idea of a filthy slobbering shedding dog in my car....why ate my rights any less
> 
> ...


The law dictates that the drivers must suffer the consequences of complying with it. There is no requirement that you must like it, Hillary did not win, so all that is required is that you do it; thus far, at least.

Most legitimate service animals are well behaved. In fact, there was a time when I had a cab that had a partition. It was constructed in such a way that it was extremely uncomfortable for a dog to lie on the floor (most service dogs are trained to lie on the floor of a motor vehicle). I used to have to tell the customer with a service dog that he should tell the dog to sit or lie on the seat. That cab (and every cab that I have owned, for that matter), had vinyl covered seats and rubber floors, so the dog hair and slobber was not that big a deal. In fact, the slobber was rare, if ever--I can not remember. The roll of paper towels, bottle of Spray Nine™ and the Dustbuster™ made short work of any slobber or hair. Service animals were the rare exception, rather than the rule (and still are), in this market, at least. If I get more than five in a year, that is unusual. There was a time when there were several regular customers who had them, but I have not seen any of them in some time.

The UberX/Lyft car is a different matter. The cloth seats and carpets tend to hold hair, so it requires a bit more dust busting. If F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* would pay the drivers some decent rates, I would pay to have the seats and floors covered. On these 1979 cab rates, I can not pay 2018 costs to equip my car properly for this kind of work. Still, animules are the exception, rather than the rule, for me, at least.



RedSteel said:


> What I am against is people that think their circumstances are more important then mine and go so far as to go to court to force others to do things they don't want to do.
> 
> that doesn't automatically mean that they can trample the rights of others.
> 
> ...


The law dictates that you must suffer all of the above. The attitude of the people who wrote or voted for the law, and, that of the general public who support such laws is that if you do not like it, either lump it or do not do the job. Right or wrong; correct or incorrect; legitimate or not, that is the subject of another discussion. Yes, their disability trumps yours (allergy) and it does trump your preferences.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> It's actually been the law for 28 years, the reason people went to court was because people weren't following the law, not to create the law. It's been that way for quite some time now, but as is typical for Uber, they thought they were above the law (and found out quickly that isn't so). Everyone has to follow the law, you make it sound like the disabled people went to court to try to make a new law or something. I don't like that I have to come to a complete stop when there is no one else at a 4 way stop, but alas, that's the law.
> 
> As for the the delay argument, I don't think you're seeing the big picture. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you were allowed to opt out. You seem to think it would be a couple of minutes. Let's explore that. I need to get to work, so I order an Uber. You come to me (I had to wait 4 minutes let's say for you to get there), and see I have a service dog. You "opt out" and presumably they'd have a system in place that would pop the ping to another driver. That driver is 6 minutes away and comes (I've been waiting 10 minutes now, plus the minute or so for you to "opt out"). Oh, they decide to opt out too. The next driver is 8 minutes away, but doesn't do trips over 7 minutes, so rejects. The next driver is 10 minutes away, and is actually willing to come (must be a full timer or on a quest or something). Now it's been 22 minutes or so, and they are actually willing to take me. My 4 minute pickup became a 22 minute pick up and I'm now late for work. That doesn't even cover situations where there is only one driver in the area. Does that explain the problem a little bit better?
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but so much of what your saying is at best dumb

1) your first scenario.... 
A) I would hope that if you are relying on public or private transportation to get you to work you would have the common sense to realize that you need to leave a cushion for unforeseen circumstances because if you don't then it's on you ....take self responsibility
B) it would be simple that you could register with Uber that you are using a service animal and they could simply put a designation (much like the +45 minute ride) and I could see that and choose not to accept the ride. The person that accepts the ride already knows you have a service animal and has no issues. But here is where you want your cake, eat it and have others clean up.....you will say that it is discriminating. It is IMO showing that you know there are special circumstances involved and giving others the common respect to make decisions based on the what they want

2) your other point was equally if not more stupid because your using an ethnic analogy that is like comparing apples to a car battery. Unless your saying that other ethnic groups are more likely to leave masses in my car or damage the leather....but I hope you are being that discriminatory. As for other handicapped people.....you really going to compare a hearing aide to a living breathing thing that has a bladder or bowels .....really?


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

"Trample on my rights"? You do realize that part of living in a civilization is that you forfeit some rights for the greater good. It has been deemed that persons who NEED animals to go out into the world and exist on a day to day basis should have the right to do so even if it means that your rights are diminished in the slightest way. This is now the law, period. SERVICE ANIMALS. Emotional support animals are not covered. You can ask the two questions, that is all. If you can't tolerate animals then you can't do this particular job, sorry. Why don't we all complain that our favorite team doesn't let us be an athlete, never mind we aren't skilled. You have to have certain skills to do this work. You must be sighted, you must have a working vehicle and you must be able to tolerate animals. If you are such a heartless that you feel disabled people don't have the right to navigate the world as easily and without prejudice as everyone else then please move to a snow cave in the arctic circle and do whatever you please.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

wk1102 said:


> Commercial planes have their own law re: disabilities.
> 
> The Air Carrier Access Act.
> 
> ...


Their notification requests are reasonable and as yet I've seen nothing preventing the same from uber.


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

RedSteel said:


> Completely different and inane analogy
> 
> Ethnicity does not create special circumstances out of the norm
> 
> Special requests do


My analogy is no more inane than yours is.

The purpose of the law is to ensure people with disabilities which require a service dog DO NOT need to make a "special request".


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> If the service animal is transported seamlessly then the law has succeeded.


*The prob here, see, is what the soivice animules wuzzin't gittin' tranportidd seamlessly or otherwise. From what you read about all them lawsuits and some people on these Boards what's gittin' fired from Uber an' Lyft, it looks like they STILL ain't gittin' transportidd seamlessly or otherwise.*


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> *The prob here, see, is what the soivice animules wuzzin't gittin' tranportidd seamlessly or otherwise. From what you read about all them lawsuits and some people on these Boards what's gittin' fired from Uber an' Lyft, it looks like they STILL ain't gittin' transportidd seamlessly or otherwise.*


That's present case. Nothing to which I'm referring within the context of my suggestion is predicated on present case except to show that that the present case, can and should be improved upon.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Disgusted Driver said:


> You do realize that part of living in a civilization is that you forfeit some rights for the greater good.


.......the question then becomes what rights do you waive or or surrender (I would not use "forfeit", but that might be just me)? That subject has been discussed for years. To be sure, both Rousseau and DeTocqueville (as well as others) can be instructive on the basics and the general, but, on the specifics, there is not much help out there.



Wonkytonk said:


> the present case, can and should be improved upon.


As I do not now, nor ever have, disagreed with that, nothing that I have posted to this topic, or anywhere else, for that matter, is in disagreement with that.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Disgusted Driver said:


> "Trample on my rights"? You do realize that part of living in a civilization is that you forfeit some rights for the greater good. It has been deemed that persons who NEED animals to go out into the world and exist on a day to day basis should have the right to do so even if it means that your rights are diminished in the slightest way. This is now the law, period. SERVICE ANIMALS. Emotional support animals are not covered. You can ask the two questions, that is all. If you can't tolerate animals then you can't do this particular job, sorry. Why don't we all complain that our favorite team doesn't let us be an athlete, never mind we aren't skilled. You have to have certain skills to do this work. You must be sighted, you must have a working vehicle and you must be able to tolerate animals. If you are such a heartless that you feel disabled people don't have the right to navigate the world as easily and without prejudice as everyone else then please move to a snow cave in the arctic circle and do whatever you please.


Ahhhhh and here we go...... someone that cant understand that others have different opinions and lowers their arguments to foolish and completely inane analogies that only lessens the points they want to make and when that isnt enough they start to insult

So your opinion is because I have a different opinion on this issue that I either have to toe your line or I cant be employed. That is very curious indeed

I make a very easy adjustment that there should be a designation applied that some one can make the choice best for them.....not be forced to deal with a situation they dont want under the threat of termination



wk1102 said:


> My analogy is no more inane than yours is.
> 
> The purpose of the law is to ensure people with disabilities which require a service dog DO NOT need to make a "special request".


Why shouldn't they?

The are introducing a special situation in the a service they are requesting someone else do for them

Why shouldn't they be required to make their needs known up front?

Rights go both ways or is that too hard for you to grasp


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> I'm sorry but so much of what your saying is at best dumb
> 
> 1) your first scenario....
> A) I would hope that if you are relying on public or private transportation to get you to work you would have the common sense to realize that you need to leave a cushion for unforeseen circumstances because if you don't then it's on you ....take self responsibility
> ...


1. There is no way that Uber can have a flag to notify you because we aren't required to notify them that we have a service dog (so they wouldn't know in order to tell you). This is the problem with speculating without knowledge of the system as a whole. You really should read my guide to service animals, the last person that tried reading it after they had the encounter wound up deactivated because they didn't have the proper info before hand. That's the whole reason I made the guide, so people can be informed before they get a service dog ride. You're proceeding under incorrect assumptions. If Uber doesn't know I have a service dog, how can they possibly tell you?

2. To someone who is discriminatory (as you appear to be about service dogs), it is the same. They honestly believe that racial nonsense like "X race stinks and will leave a smell behind in your car" and "X race has no respect and will pick at the leather and tear up your car" much like your ridiculous assumptions that a service dog is going to destroy your car. Somehow you can recognize that the racial biases are fraudulent, but you can't see past your service dog bias. Learn more about actual service dogs before you make incorrect assumptions. Service dogs go on the floorboards, so your leather has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> As I do not now, nor ever have, disagreed with that, nothing that I have posted to this topic, or anywhere else, for that matter, is in disagreement with that.


Good then we agree on that. Progress is a beautiful thing really.



Pawtism said:


> 1. There is no way that Uber can have a flag to notify you because we aren't required to notify them that we have a service dog (so they wouldn't know in order to tell you). This is the problem with speculating without knowledge of the system as a whole.


But that's fairly easy to fix and I doubt were Uber to create a separate class of service which gives them the ability to tell when transport for a service animal was required that most people in need of that transport would mind especially since it would have the aggregate effect of taking a lot of hassle out of the process for them.

Plus there's nothing unreasonable about it.

But then I'm talking about wishful thinking about actually improving the process not maintenance of the status quo which ain't working so well now.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> 1. There is no way that Uber can have a flag to notify you because we aren't required to notify them that we have a service dog (so they wouldn't know in order to tell you). This is the problem with speculating without knowledge of the system as a whole. You really should read my guide to service animals, the last person that tried reading it after they had the encounter wound up deactivated because they didn't have the proper info before hand. That's the whole reason I made the guide, so people can be informed before they get a service dog ride. You're proceeding under incorrect assumptions. If Uber doesn't know I have a service dog, how can they possibly tell you?
> 
> 2. To someone who is discriminatory (as you appear to be about service dogs), it is the same. They honestly believe that racial nonsense like "X race stinks and will leave a smell behind in your car" and "X race has no respect and will pick at the leather and tear up your car" much like your ridiculous assumptions that a service dog is going to destroy your car. Somehow you can recognize that the racial biases are fraudulent, but you can't see past your service dog bias. Learn more about actual service dogs before you make incorrect assumptions. Service dogs go on the floorboards, so your leather has nothing to do with it.


The first part of your rebuttal is the exact thing I have an issue with. You believe you shouldn't have to let uber or the person your requesting a service from know a pertinent piece of information. You can't see how unbelievably arrogant and self important that is? You believe it's ok to make me forfeit my right of choice so you don't have to mention to Uber you have a special need. I cant believe people like you are that self involved that you think it's ok to request someone you don't even know to put your animal into their private property under the threat of termination if they don't....and to do it without you being required to let them know ahead of time.

And you act like this is just life saving service animals when we both know that Uber and Lyft have applied this basically to all dogs

Let's play out a scenario in REAL world terms

I pull up on a Pax with little muffintop on a leash....

I ask the Two questions...

Is it a service dog?

"Yeah sure"

What service is it trained to provide?

"My doctor said I need one to help with anxiety"

I'm sorry but that doesn't qualify as a Service Animal and I am cancelling the ride

The pax gets mad and contacts uber and says I refused to transport her service animal

What happens next?

Please stop with the comparisons with ethnic bias versus animal bias.....its frankly really dumb

One us a HUMAN BEING.....the other is an animal....you can not compare the two

And I dont have a bias against service dogs....I have a bias against all dogs as I don't like them all that much and don't want them in my private property I pay for.

I also don't like that people think they can make me forfeit my right of choice without at least letting me have all the information up front


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Please do if you get a chance.
> 
> Airlines currently request advance notice. I just checked with one of the largest national carriers they're requesting 48 to 24 hours advance notice, they're also suggesting that pax with service animals notify them upon the completion of booking.
> 
> ...


The advance notice that airlines request only applies to Emotional Support Animals (as they can't for service dogs). They do try to sneak around this by offering bulk head seating to us, and tell us "if you want to reserve it, you have to let us know as soon as possible" so most of us will let them know (volunteraly) so we can get the bulkhead seating for free (which is kinda smart of them actually hehe). We are not required to though, only ESAs are. For example, see Delta's policy:

https://www.delta.com/content/www/e...travel-needs/service-animals.html#flying-with

Note the wording (very subtle if you're not trained to read it). For "Trained Service Animals" (aka, real service dogs) it says "Customers are encouraged to submit the Trained Service Animal documentation at least 48 hours before a flight." Note, "encouraged". Whereas for "Emotional Support Animals" (ESAs) is says "Submit the Emotional Support and Psychiatric Service Animal documentation at least 48 hours before a flight." No encouraged, no we'd like it, basically do it or else they don't fly. One is mandatory, one is not.

I really will try to find the case for you though. I don't remember the names or I could probably google it. I only remember the gist of it. It was a hotel that wanted guests with service animals to flag that during registration (they claimed it was to "prepare" for the animal, the guest who filed suit claimed it was to put them in crappy rooms and they didn't need to do anything to "prepare), they showed a history of people who did flag it as such (I believe it was two other people that did flag it prior to the suit) getting crappy rooms, and they got an ex-employee to admit in court that the hotel did intentionally put people with service animals in their "worst" rooms (as to keep the others "nice" was effectively what they said). The court determined that this did amount to discrimination (duh), but more importantly they said that there is no reason any place of public accommodation would need to know about a service dog ahead of time for any nondiscriminatory reason. (translation is that the only reason anyone would need to know about a service dog ahead of time is for the sole purpose of discriminating).

Even though you don't like it, that's what your plan would ultimately do, it would change who takes or doesn't take a ride based solely on the disability a person has and what medical device they use for it. I know you mean well, that you aren't trying to be rude or anything like that. However, that is the very definition of discrimination. We wouldn't have a flag for someone with crutches, or with hearing aids, or with a prosthetic leg. Having one for people with service dogs would be outright discrimination. It would (or at least could) change how that person is dealt with (from who takes the ride, down to how they are treated). Thus, discrimination.

Anyway, it became precedent and further cases cited it, but this is the first one that directly dealt with service dogs and being notified ahead of time. It's an interesting read if you've never seen it, so I really will try to find it (or one that references it for you) later.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Coachman said:


> Good grief. I've driven almost 2,500 rides and only one service animal.


6k trips and never a single _Service Animal..._


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The first line contains the short answer; the remaining lines, a brief explanation.
> 
> FIFY
> ...


The one warning thing comes down to if they thing it was questionable or not. For example, you (and I know you wouldn't do this but I'm just using "you" as an example) drive past me when you see me standing there with my dog and cancel. I'll say it's because of my service dog, you'll say it's because you realized that you were out of gas and had to go fill up. Which of us is right? Well, while Uber isn't stupid (they probably know it was the dog), they also can't definitively say that it couldn't be that you were out of gas (especially if you stayed offline for like 5 minutes or so). That would likely be a 1 warning kind of deal (the idea with the second time being an automatic deactivation is that the odds of that happening once are low, and twice is.. well, discrimination). On the other hand if you pulled up to me and said "that dog isn't coming with us", I explain it's a service dog, and you say nope and drive off (especially if I have video of it), that's a pretty cut and dry one, and they're likely to go straight to deactivate.


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> The point of the law is to ensure that service animals be transported.


No, the purpose is to prevent discrimination. 
From the ada.gov

*The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)* became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public.



Another Uber Driver said:


> F*ub*a*r* _*actually will give you a *__*warning*_? As I read it, and, as I have read several complaints on various Boards, it is De-Activation Station, No Questions Asked; even for the first offence.
> 
> While the one warning is certainly fair, I would understand why the corporations would have a No Questions Asked policy and send reminders periodically. There are more than a few in this demographic who will sue at the slightest "provocation". The abundance of do-gooder organisations who will cover the legal costs make it even easier.


I should have said, It appears Uber's MO is....

Uber has a zero tolerance policy on impaired driving and fraud however I've been accused of fraud and am still active. Additionally, there seems to be a three strikes and you're out policy for impaired driving.

Apparently Uber has a different definition for zero-tolerance than you or I.

No wonder uber math is so complex.



RedSteel said:


> Why shouldn't they?
> 
> The are introducing a special situation in the a service they are requesting someone else do for them
> 
> ...


Because the government of this country has made laws to ensure that people with disabilities, including disabilities which require a service dog, are treated equally.

To require a person to make a special request because if a service dog, in the eyes of the law, is discrimination.



RedSteel said:


> you act like this is just life saving service animals when we both know that Uber and Lyft have applied to all dogs


This is a valid complaint but a completely different subject.



RedSteel said:


> Please stop with the comparisons with ethnic bias versus animal bias.....its frankly really dumb


You may think it is dumb however it relevant. In the eyes of the law, it is discrimination to refuse a service dog plain and simple. If you refuse to transport me because i am white or because I have a service dog, according to law, is discrimination.

It does not matter if you like or agree with it, it is the law.



RedSteel said:


> Why shouldn't they?


The American with Disabilities Act, that is why.


RedSteel said:


> One us a HUMAN BEING.....the other is an animal....you can not compare the two


Again it is not me or my opinion, i have not given my opinion on the matter, it is the law.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Good then we agree on that. Progress is a beautiful thing really.
> 
> But that's fairly easy to fix and I doubt were Uber to create a separate class of service which gives them the ability to tell when transport for a service animal was required that most people in need of that transport would mind especially since it would have the aggregate effect of taking a lot of hassle out of the process for them.
> 
> ...


Well, I suppose in theory, they could offer a discount to anyone who wanted to be identified as a service dog handler. That would allow them to collect said info, without violating current law. But it still wouldn't completely accomplish your goal. I, for one, would choose not to self identify for a discount, so you still wouldn't know I had one. I've experienced too much discrimination to trust that drivers wouldn't discriminate. Some would take the discount, some wouldn't. I'm not sure why everyone is so worried about this though, do you know what your odds of getting a pax with a real service dog are? Roughly one in every 1,000 rides. Some have gone many more rides (5,000 or so) and never had one.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

handiacefailure said:


> I'm curious as to how you guys handle this and if you have any rights.
> 
> I know someone that wants to start driving for Uber and on the last upgrade I had to agree to take service dogs even if I have a dog allergy. Not a fan of dogs in my car since I have two cats and when I transport them if I have recently transported my parents dogs and they pick up the scent, but I'd be willing to do it if I had a passenger with a dog.
> 
> ...


Allergy is not a recognized Disability so, no, your friend can't try to use the ADA laws to fight against the ADA laws.

This isn't new. The ADA law requires all transportation providers (which we have always been) to allow service animals. 
But, the ADA laws do not shield the owner of the animals from paying for cleaning fees and charges for damages.


----------



## TedInTampa (Apr 5, 2017)

I understand the law thanks mostly to Pawtism's fantastic explanation. As a dog lover who has transported many dogs, it is not an issue for me. I would prefer to have a service dog than not one, because the ride will almost certainly not include the typical bad pax activities. I however have a fear of a false accusation. Someone without a disability and without an animal accusing me of not taking them because of a service animal. The least I could hope for is a 2 day fake investigation like when I was accused of being drunk by a paxhole (lost a weekend for that one). More likely, Uber or Lyft would drop me without substantiating the false claim.

Pawtism, 2 questions: 1 if falsely accused, what should we do... look for a new job, call a lawyer, change our name and reapply to Uber?
2 If you were making recommendations to congress, what changes would you make to the existing law? As someone not dealing with it and not a lawyer, I think papers and a legally regulated vest for the dog, and accusations should include proof of actually having a service dog. Your legal mind has pointed out problems with some of the suggestions, but do you think the law could be made better (for the masses without harming those with a service animal).


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> But, the ADA laws do not shield the owner of the animals from paying for cleaning fees and charges for damages.


*Q12. Can hotels charge a cleaning fee for guests who have service animals?*
No. Hotels are not permitted to charge guests for cleaning the hair or dander shed by a service animal. However, if a guest's service animal causes damages to a guest room, a hotel is permitted to charge the same fee for damages as charged to other guests









I would assume this applies to all businesses but I am not sure.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Coachman said:


> Good grief. I've driven almost 2,500 rides and only one service animal.


Some people just don't like dogs. Out of 4,500 rides, I have had only 7 dogs. I collected $15 each time as a cleaning fee just to bug the pax. Seattle is a very pet friendly town and even some restaurants allow dogs.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

handiacefailure said:


> I'm curious as to how you guys handle this and if you have any rights.
> 
> I know someone that wants to start driving for Uber and on the last upgrade I had to agree to take service dogs even if I have a dog allergy. Not a fan of dogs in my car since I have two cats and when I transport them if I have recently transported my parents dogs and they pick up the scent, but I'd be willing to do it if I had a passenger with a dog.
> 
> ...


1. Your eyes swell up driving down the freeway going 65MPH.. Then you crash and burn...

2. Then all families file wrongful death lawsuits against Uber /Lyft and who ever made this dumb law.

3. Thats what happens reactive not proactive....


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> The first part of your rebuttal is the exact thing I have an issue with. You believe you shouldn't have to let uber or the person your requesting a service from know a pertinent piece of information. You can't see how unbelievably arrogant and self important that is? You believe it's ok to make me forfeit my right of choice so you don't have to mention to Uber you have a special need. I cant believe people like you are that self involved that you think it's ok to request someone you don't even know to put your animal into their private property under the threat of termination if they don't....and to do it without you being required to let them know ahead of time.
> 
> And you act like this is just life saving service animals when we both know that Uber and Lyft have applied this basically to all dogs
> 
> ...


You made your "private property" a "public accommodation" by choice. I didn't tell you to sign up with Uber/Lyft. If I were to ever go in someones "private property", I would certainly take their choice into account (but I also wouldn't be paying for it as a service, depending how far we're going I might toss 'em a bit for gas). You, and you alone, chose to make your car a "public accommodation" and yes, I expect to be treated equally and fairly in it (as should everyone). Again, if you don't like your car being a "public accommodation", quit going online and it will become "private property" again. You are 100% in control of that. While you are using it as a "public accommodation" though, you'd better believe I would protect my right to be treated fairly.

As for your situational example, what happens next is you immediately report a "fake service dog" to Uber/Lyft and provide them your dash cam video. They may deactivate for a bit while they investigate (as is typical for anything they have to investigate, not just service dog stuff), and they reactivate you and remove the warning from your record. Want an example? Here's 2 (both from same driver, who is still a driver btw).











As for human beings, yeah... I hate to have to be the one to inform you, but we're all animals. So, as it turns out, you can compare the two. However, you seemed to have missed my point. I wasn't comparing the two, I was saying substitute the idea. Forget humans (race) since you seem stuck on that. "I shouldn't have to take people with glasses." Does that sound right to you? A service dog is a medical device (durable medical equipment to be exact) the same as crutches or glasses or any other medical device.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't like dogs. But if you want to be 100% sure you don't have to take them, convert your "public accomodation" back to "private property". That's the only sure fix. That being said, you are aware that the odds of taking a service dog is something like once every 1,000 rides (and many pass that mark without one), right?


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> Your eyes swell up driving down the freeway going 65MPH.. Then you crash and burn... Then all families file wrongful death lawsuits against Uber and who ever made this dumb law. Thats what happens reactive not proactive....


If your allergies are this severe any dog owner is potentially just as much of a risk to you as the dog itself.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

There are plenty of laws I don't agree with....and just because they are laws doesn't make them right or outdated

There is a well known law on the book that allows a woman to commit murder as a form of birth control because she was either too lazy to take a pill or ensure her partner had a condom on. Just because it is a law doesn't make me like it or not see how it is abused.

I am sure when the ADA was created in 1990 they couldn't see ahead of time of how the law would be abused (especially in California for some reason)

Braille stickers on gas pumps (seriously?)
Braille stickers on Coinstar Machines??

So on and so forth

You want to hide behind an outdated law that couldn't possibly account for all possibilities

I di not think it is unreasonable or not beneficial for everyone that people that have a special request (and asking a stranger to put your animal in his vehicle IS a special request no matter how you look at it) be asked to register it ahead of time si they can be placed with drivers that have no issue with it

Or is this a power trip where you actually enjoy forcing your dog on someone that doesn't want it in their car....a way of pressing ......your "dominance" on them and forcing them to di what they don't want to do.

Example......I am a VERY friendly driver and my rating and tips prove that out. But you force me to put your animal in my clean car and you will be very aware the whole trip I am not happy about it

Why have that situation at all?



Pawtism said:


> You made your "private property" a "public accommodation" by choice. I didn't tell you to sign up with Uber/Lyft. If I were to ever go in someones "private property", I would certainly take their choice into account (but I also wouldn't be paying for it as a service, depending how far we're going I might toss 'em a bit for gas). You, and you alone, chose to make your car a "public accommodation" and yes, I expect to be treated equally and fairly in it (as should everyone). Again, if you don't like your car being a "public accommodation", quit going online and it will become "private property" again. You are 100% in control of that. While you are using it as a "public accommodation" though, you'd better believe I would protect my right to be treated fairly.
> 
> As for your situational example, what happens next is you immediately report a "fake service dog" to Uber/Lyft and provide them your dash cam video. They may deactivate for a bit while they investigate (as is typical for anything they have to investigate, not just service dog stuff), and they reactivate you and remove the warning from your record. Want an example? Here's 2 (both from same driver, who is still a driver btw).
> 
> ...


The first piece of this just showed your arrogance

"Take my dog or quit"

Seriously??

Your comfortable with acting like that?

All I want is the right to know ahead of time so I can choose for myself whether I want your animal in my car.....NOT unfair

As for your percentages......I work part time

I have given just over 1000 rides

1 so far this year and 3 last year and I hated every moment of it. None were service animals IMO .....and I didnt want to risk deactivation to find out so I did it.

I'm sure that brings a smile to your face


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

TedInTampa said:


> I understand the law thanks mostly to Pawtism's fantastic explanation. As a dog lover who has transported many dogs, it is not an issue for me. I would prefer to have a service dog than not one, because the ride will almost certainly not include the typical bad pax activities. I however have a fear of a false accusation. Someone without a disability and without an animal accusing me of not taking them because of a service animal. The least I could hope for is a 2 day fake investigation like when I was accused of being drunk by a paxhole (lost a weekend for that one). More likely, Uber or Lyft would drop me without substantiating the false claim.
> 
> Pawtism, 2 questions: 1 if falsely accused, what should we do... look for a new job, call a lawyer, change our name and reapply to Uber?
> 2 If you were making recommendations to congress, what changes would you make to the existing law? As someone not dealing with it and not a lawyer, I think papers and a legally regulated vest for the dog, and accusations should include proof of actually having a service dog. Your legal mind has pointed out problems with some of the suggestions, but do you think the law could be made better (for the masses without harming those with a service animal).


1. The first thing I'd do is offer up my video and point out that not a single pax had a dog on the day in question. Half the time you don't even have to send it in, if they know you have it that's usually going to be good enough for them. If they do want it, fine send it to them. The second thing I'd do after they reinstated me, is go to small claims court and file against "john doe and uber" and then subpoena uber for the name of the person who made the false claim, then amend the suit to just that person and go after them for my lost income while they "investigated". Judges typically don't apprecaite people making blatantly false claims like that and you might even wind up with some punitive damages as a bonus. 

2. First, let me point out that this is unlikely to happen. However, if I had any pull with Congress (and I don't hehe), I'd argue for a system, probably run by the states but paid for federally (both the states and the feds would be pist about that lol, but I think it's the fairest way to do it). Where they basically do an ID (either a tag, or a card type, I'm not sure I care which) that verifies that I have a disability (like a letter from a doc, stating that "meet the ADA definition of disability", they don't need to know what it is), and does a public access test. As I've said before there isn't a practical way to test all dogs tasks, but this would at least show that they got through the public access section of it (and thus the public can expect a well behaved dog). Again, this is very unlikely to happen, but if I were Emperor of the Universe, that's probably how I'd set it up. I hope that answered your question. 



wk1102 said:


> *Q12. Can hotels charge a cleaning fee for guests who have service animals?*
> No. Hotels are not permitted to charge guests for cleaning the hair or dander shed by a service animal. However, if a guest's service animal causes damages to a guest room, a hotel is permitted to charge the same fee for damages as charged to other guests
> View attachment 231170
> 
> ...


It does, at least most of them. There are some very, very rare exceptions (such as extreme cleaning). For example, let's say I rent a car (this has happened before, where I was given a rental to use), and they have a rule that any dogs in the car will result in a $250.00 cleaning fee. They can't charge me it just for having my service dog in the car, but let's say I brought it back just lined in muddy paw prints (I would never do that, but for the sake of argument let's say I did). They could make the argument that it goes beyond normal cleaning (and treat is as if I'd dragged mud into the car). Charge me it, and if I wished, I could take it to court and they'd decide (based on previous case law, I'd likely lose that one). I hope that makes sense?



wk1102 said:


> If your allergies are this severe any dog owner is potentially just as much of a risk to you as the dog itself.


Exactly, and then you qualify as disabled yourself and shouldn't have been ride share driving (thus the accident is actually your fault). It's kinda messed up, but it's the truth. If you have allergies so severe that coming in contact with pet dander is going to cause you to crash, you have no business as a ride share driver.

On the plus side, you may want to get yourself a mini horse to help smell and alert you to pet dander allergens?


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

It is really quite simple and has been argued to death in this and many other threads. 

“Why must I take service animals?”
It’s the law. 

“Why can’t Uber make a thing where people register they have a service animal and give drivers a choice?”
It’s against the law. 

“What can I do if I don’t like/am allergic to dogs?”
You can refuse in whatever way (outright refuse, cancel when you see the dog, etc.) and face deactivation. 
You can suck it up and take the ride. 
You can stop driving ride share. 

“That’s not good enough!”
Write your congressman.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> There are plenty of laws I don't agree with....and just because they are laws doesn't make them right or outdated
> 
> There is a well known law on the book that allows a woman to commit murder as a form of birth control because she was either too lazy to take a pill or ensure her partner had a condom on. Just because it is a law doesn't make me like it or not see how it is abused.
> 
> ...


"Why have that situation at all?" Because I still need to get places? I guess not me literally (I have a car and am lucky enough that my disability, at least so far, has not restricted my driving, although I have to have my doc sign off on it every 2 years). Not everyone is as fortunate as me, and they have places to go. They have as much right to go where they need to go as anyone else does. The fact that they have a service dog is irrelevant (and making it a relevant factor is discriminatory, the same as making someone's race, religion, etc a relevant factor is). They purposely don't let you know ahead of time because you aren't supposed to take the service dog into consideration. You have a hard time grasping that because you (by your own admission) are discriminatory to dogs in general. Just like a racist honestly believes the crazy things they say, you honestly believe that a dog is *insert inaccurate things about dogs here*. That's why this isn't making sense to you when it does to most other people (they don't have the bias against dogs that you do).

As for the percentages, so you had 4 dogs in just over 1000 rides, but none of them were likely service dogs? Doesn't that support my theory then? And, by that math, you should be getting one any day now.  Seriously though, it's an average. The law of large numbers comes into play. UberLaLa says hes at 6,000 now without a single service dog, whereas I'm sure we could find someone who lives within range of one of the program training schools that has 1 service dog every 200 rides or so. Just because you are at 1,000 now doesn't mean you'll definitely get one now. As for the 4 you took that you didn't want to ask the questions on, that's your choice. There is no law that says you have to ask (not that affects Uber's anyway). If you wish to ask though, you have 2 questions you are allowed to ask (because they did take into account that there could be a fake problem, although I'm sure you're right that they didn't expect it to be as bad as it is). It's on you if you wish to ask them or not, at least you are now aware of the two questions you can ask (and don't forget to record the answers).

As for "take the dog or quit", I think it would be more accurate to summarize my last part there with "deal with it or quit". The law is the law, it became law because too many people were being discriminatory when it wasn't the law, so they had to make it law (sad but true). Again, I don't like stopping at 4 way stops when clearly no one else is coming. But I can deal with it, or quit driving, those are my legal choices. I suppose I can run the stop sign too as an illegal choice, but that comes with potential consequences. At best, I'll get a ticket. At worst, I'll kill some little kid crossing that I didn't see. While neither has good consequences, one is definitely worse than he other. Discriminate (for any reason) and at best you get deactivated, at worst you get arrested and wind up with a criminal record and a federal civil rights lawsuit against you. Bottom line is, it is what it is, griping about it won't solve it. The law is the law (if you wish to change it, it's Congress you have to convince, I've listed the changes I'd make further up).



RynoHawk said:


> It is really quite simple and has been argued to death in this and many other threads.
> 
> "Why must I take service animals?"
> It's the law.
> ...


Exactly, well said.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> "Why have that situation at all?" Because I still need to get places? I guess not me literally (I have a car and am lucky enough that my disability, at least so far, has not restricted my driving, although I have to have my doc sign off on it every 2 years). Not everyone is as fortunate as me, and they have places to go. They have as much right to go where they need to go as anyone else does. The fact that they have a service dog is irrelevant (and making it a relevant factor is discriminatory, the same as making someone's race, religion, etc a relevant factor is). They purposely don't let you know ahead of time because you aren't supposed to take the service dog into consideration. You have a hard time grasping that because you (by your own admission) are discriminatory to dogs in general. Just like a racist honestly believes the crazy things they say, you honestly believe that a dog is *insert inaccurate things about dogs here*. That's why this isn't making sense to you when it does to most other people (they don't have the bias against dogs that you do).
> 
> As for the percentages, so you had 4 dogs in just over 1000 rides, but none of them were likely service dogs? Doesn't that support my theory then? And, by that math, you should be getting one any day now.  Seriously though, it's an average. The law of large numbers comes into play. UberLaLa says hes at 6,000 now without a single service dog, whereas I'm sure we could find someone who lives within range of one of the program training schools that has 1 service dog every 200 rides or so. Just because you are at 1,000 now doesn't mean you'll definitely get one now. As for the 4 you took that you didn't want to ask the questions on, that's your choice. There is no law that says you have to ask (not that affects Uber's anyway). If you wish to ask though, you have 2 questions you are allowed to ask (because they did take into account that there could be a fake problem, although I'm sure you're right that they didn't expect it to be as bad as it is). It's on you if you wish to ask them or not, at least you are now aware of the two questions you can ask (and don't forget to record the answers).
> 
> ...


Well first off I can certainly grasp any concept you can come up with....trust me you arent Stephen Hawking or anything

Just because I believe your points to be crap and completely biased .....didnt mean I don't grasp them. I am just maintaining they are outdated

First off you putting an animal in my car is completely relevant to me. ...I am the one that has to clean up after it.

It isnt discrimination....its a dog.

Please stop acting like if we had the ability to decline a ride ahead of time based on our preference ...to not have someone's animal in our car that would have much of any effect on the person with the service animal. Let me remind you how Uber works.....if I am closest and I am 5 minutes away....I decline....they go to the next closest who may only be 6 minutes away and they LOVE dogs.....wow they were so inconvenienced.

Wouldn't it be better overall for the dog to be in the car with someone that likes it being there then the person that hates it and will probably drive faster to get it the hell out their car?

This whole argument just screams to me that you are someone that loves the idea of pushing your dog on someone that doesn't want it.....you like the power trip

I have no problem with people having service dogs.....I just have a problem that they don't want to tell people up front they have a special situation. I think people should take others feeling into consideration

And again.......stop comparing dogs to ethnic backgrounds.....its a stupid analogy and demeans any other point you try to make. You are boardline trying to call me a racist which is moronic.

I wouldn't ask the questions because Uber has generally made the point you will be deactivated if you refuse any dog and it would be a far bigger hassle getting reactivated then just taking the snowflake that wants their comfort dog and is willing to lie

You should WANT to have it registered because it would take them out of play and make it better for everyone


----------



## HRD2UBER (Aug 26, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> Well, I guess they could shoot for an autonomous emergency backup driver position. I mean it's not like their current drivers, well at least one for sure, did any better than a blind driver could.
> 
> What, too soon?
> 
> This issue has me shaking my head at Uber for how stupid it is, not because they're enforcing the service dog law, far from it, I think it's necessary, no, what gets me about uber is that they could do away with driver angst over this issue by simply giving drivers the option to opt out of transporting service animals, and then pay a high surge rate for transporting them, and offer the rides to drivers who haven't opted out. It's not like there's a lot of service animal ride requests on any given day. Uber has more than enough money to do this, and they should.


AMEN!! I was thinking the same thing...thank you. Since uber care so much for the drivers and riders more so riders. We should be able to opt out and still be able to drive. They have a special sections for handicap with wheelchair bound riders. Why not for service animals?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> Well first off I can certainly grasp any concept you can come up with....trust me you arent Stephen Hawking or anything
> 
> Just because I believe your points to be crap and completely biased .....didnt mean I don't grasp them. I am just maintaining they are outdated
> 
> ...


If there is another driver a minute away from where you are, sure. Not everywhere is as densely packed. There are places where there are only a few drivers available. And what if none of them wanted to take it? Again, you're really not thinking this whole thing through. You're only thinking "how can I rig it so I can avoid taking the dog", which is, in and of itself, discriminatory. I'm not saying you're a racist. Clearly you seem to grasp that racial discrimination is wrong. I'm saying you're discriminatory against those with disabilities (while service dogs are the obvious point, you've also referenced people needing meals a certain way should be discriminated against as well, without taking into account that they can make the meal just as quickly leaving one ingredient out). It's the same idea as racism, but not the same as being "racist" (which you certainly don't seem to be). Hence the word "discriminatory".

Have you ever considered that they don't tell people up front they have a "special situation" because they don't want to be treated any differently? Has it occurred to you that they just want to be treated like everyone else?

As for the questions, they have never said that you have to take any animal. People like you come on here and make claims like that, but I've shown you evidence of a driver, multiple times, refusing fakes and being reinstated (without a fight at all, just had to offer up the video and wait for them to watch it). He hasn't even (that I'm aware of) sued the fakers (although it's his right to do so).

As for my personal feelings on registration, I have listed (further up in an answer to someone else's question) how I'd handle it, but I have no more power to change the law than you do. I'd have a registration system (state run/federally funded) where a disability (not specified) was verified, and a public access test was done (as that's the only standardized test they could really do). While it couldn't 100% eliminate fakers, it would make people reasonably sure that it's a service dog. Alas, I'm not yet (once I get my android body though... ) Emperor of the Universe (how's that for a power trip?), and can not make that change (nor can I start my summary executions of anyone with an IQ under 105 ). If Congress ever seeks my input, I'll gladly give it (as I'm sure you'd give yours if they ever sought it out). My ultimate point is, the law is the law, being upset about it accomplishes nothing. You've already stated you'd take the dog, but you wouldn't like it (and the law doesn't require you to like it). If you choose to take ESAs also to avoid the hassle, that's up to you (although it's inaccurate to say you don't have a choice, you're choosing not to ask the questions you are allowed to).



HRD2UBER said:


> AMEN!! I was thinking the same thing...thank you. Since uber care so much for the drivers and riders more so riders. We should be able to opt out and still be able to drive. They have a special sections for handicap with wheelchair bound riders. Why not for service animals?


There are 4 pages here explaining why not.

The long and the short of it though, is that it would be illegal.


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

RedSteel said:


> It isnt discrimination....its a dog.


No, it is a person who has to have that dog with them because of a disability. Denying that person or their dog is, as defined by law, discrimination.



RedSteel said:


> And again.......stop comparing dogs to ethnic backgrounds.....its a stupid analogy and demeans any other point you try to make. You are boardline trying to call me a racist which is moronic.


 I am not calling you a racist nor nor implying as such. In fact, when I originally made the comparison i was banking on you NOT being a racist. To take away that I or anyone in this thread is calling or implying that you are a racist is shortsighted. You replies are well written and show signs of intelligence, use it.

I simply used that analog to make my point. The law, contrary to your beliefs, was enacted to prevent discrimination against disabled persons including disabled persons who require a service dog.

The comparison to racial discrimination is completely relevant. Discrimination is discrimination. You are failing or refusing to understand that by law, not taking a person with their service animal is discrimination.

It does not matter if you like it or not, it is the law.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

handiacefailure said:


> I'm curious as to how you guys handle this and if you have any rights.
> 
> I know someone that wants to start driving for Uber and on the last upgrade I had to agree to take service dogs even if I have a dog allergy. Not a fan of dogs in my car since I have two cats and when I transport them if I have recently transported my parents dogs and they pick up the scent, but I'd be willing to do it if I had a passenger with a dog.
> 
> ...


Why would ADA laws be inapplicable to contractors?



Pawtism said:


> So the law is only 28 years old. Brand new!
> 
> Seriously though, the answers here have been very good. You'll find a lot more info at https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-ultimate-service-dog-guide.253888/, but the information that allergies, fear, and religious objections are not valid reasons to deny a service dog is correct. I think the question/confusion on if the ADA covers drivers or not comes from the difference between Title I and (mostly) Title III of the ADA. Title III is what covers service dogs, Title I covers employees. If we were actually employees, then someone with an actual disability to animal dander (which very few people actually rise to the level of), would be able to be moved to another position (under the ADA reasonable accommodations). I think this was the part he was asking about. Bottom line, because we're contractors we aren't covered by it.
> 
> If your friend is one of those very rare few who is so allergic that they can't be around it at all, they certainly shouldn't drive any ride shares. Not just because of the off chance that they might have to take a service dog (and they would if they got one, but they are rare too), but more importantly because anyone that allergic would react badly to the dander that will be on pax who have pets too.


Under law, allergies are not a disability


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

Rat said:


> Why would ADA laws be inapplicable to contractors?
> 
> Under law, allergies are not a disability


I guess what prevents us drivers from bringing our pets then? Fido or Kitty is my emotional support pet for Ahole Customers.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

RedSteel said:


> What I am against is people that think their circumstances are more important then mine and go so far as to go to court to force others to do things they don't want to do.
> 
> I understand that certain disabilities use service animals.... that doesn't automatically mean that they can trample the rights of others.
> 
> ...


You don't get it. A service animal is not going to destroy your car. Believe me, the Handler is more likely to rip the headrest off of your seat then the dog is to chew on anything or have an accident. Seriously.

In order for a service dog to be a good service dog, the first thing that has to do is show a temperament for it. This is actually pretty rare, as they have to be lacking in almost every canine Instinct they have except eagerness to please. Seriously. You could drop a T-bone steak in front of a service dog that is properly trained, and is on duty, but hasn't had anything to eat all day, and the dog might sniff from a distance, but won't touch it until the Handler says it's okay. If the dog is incapable of this, it ceases to be a service animal until this social training can be reinforced again, if it can.

They're not going to be destructive. They're not going to be aggressive. They're not going to be territorial. They're not going to be noisy. After initially looking at you and perhaps sniffing the air in your general direction, the dog will lay down on the floor of your car and stay there until it Handler is ready to leave. In fact, the dog won't even enter your car until the Handler says it can, and it won't leave until the Handler tells it it can.

We are talking about animals that are better behaved and better trained than any of those people that went to the royal wedding. Any legitimate service dog is well-behaved enough to have tea with the queen. How many of your human passengers would you be willing to say the same of?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Disgusted Driver said:


> "Trample on my rights"? You do realize that part of living in a civilization is that you forfeit some rights for the greater good. It has been deemed that persons who NEED animals to go out into the world and exist on a day to day basis should have the right to do so even if it means that your rights are diminished in the slightest way. This is now the law, period. SERVICE ANIMALS. Emotional support animals are not covered. You can ask the two questions, that is all. If you can't tolerate animals then you can't do this particular job, sorry. Why don't we all complain that our favorite team doesn't let us be an athlete, never mind we aren't skilled. You have to have certain skills to do this work. You must be sighted, you must have a working vehicle and you must be able to tolerate animals. If you are such a heartless that you feel disabled people don't have the right to navigate the world as easily and without prejudice as everyone else then please move to a snow cave in the arctic circle and do whatever you please.


Hear, hear!



RedSteel said:


> I also don't like that people think they can make me forfeit my right of choice without at least letting me have all the information up front


But you don't HAVE a right of choice. Any more than I have a right of choice to steal. It's illegal.

There are lots of things about which we, as citizens in a civilized nation, don't have a right of choice.

You can of course choose not to be a rideshare driver.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Rat said:


> Why would ADA laws be inapplicable to contractors?
> 
> Under law, allergies are not a disability


Title I of the ADA (Employment) is the part they mean that isn't applicable, Title III (Public Accommodations) still applies to us, of course.

Allergies can be a disability if they rise to the definition ("a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity"), by substantially, they mean a big deal, not just a runny nose. Some people have, for example, a latex allergy that could rise to that level. Some peanut allergies (for example those who are affected even by the peanut dust in the air, not just physical contact) could as well. Very, very few animal dander allergies that meet that definition exist (but I can't say there aren't any). It's definitely very rare though, for most people it won't.



SurgeMasterMN said:


> I guess what prevents us drivers from bringing our pets then? Fido or Kitty is my emotional support pet for Ahole Customers.


Well, Emotional Support Animals aren't covered. If you have an actual disability, and have a task trained service dog, nothing stops you from bringing it (in fact, I did when I was driving).



SuzeCB said:


> You don't get it. A service animal is not going to destroy your car. Believe me, the Handler is more likely to rip the headrest off of your seat then the dog is to chew on anything or have an accident. Seriously.
> 
> In order for a service dog to be a good service dog, the first thing that has to do is show a temperament for it. This is actually pretty rare, as they have to be lacking in almost every canine Instinct they have except eagerness to please. Seriously. You could drop a T-bone steak in front of a service dog that is properly trained, and is on duty, but hasn't had anything to eat all day, and the dog might sniff from a distance, but won't touch it until the Handler says it's okay. If the dog is incapable of this, it ceases to be a service animal until this social training can be reinforced again, if it can.
> 
> ...


Truth. I can honestly say my service dog is better behaved than I am (which is a bit of sad commentary on me).


----------



## Iamfoodgod (Mar 9, 2018)

Close your nose.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> The advance notice that airlines request only applies to Emotional Support Animals (as they can't for service dogs). They do try to sneak around this by offering bulk head seating to us, and tell us "if you want to reserve it, you have to let us know as soon as possible" so most of us will let them know (volunteraly) so we can get the bulkhead seating for free (which is kinda smart of them actually hehe). We are not required to though, only ESAs are. For example, see Delta's policy:
> 
> https://www.delta.com/content/www/e...travel-needs/service-animals.html#flying-with
> 
> Note the wording (very subtle if you're not trained to read it). For "Trained Service Animals" (aka, real service dogs) it says "Customers are encouraged to submit the Trained Service Animal documentation at least 48 hours before a flight." Note, "encouraged". Whereas for "Emotional Support Animals" (ESAs) is says "Submit the Emotional Support and Psychiatric Service Animal documentation at least 48 hours before a flight." No encouraged, no we'd like it, basically do it or else they don't fly. One is mandatory, one is not.


My experience from a few hours ago was that "encouraged" within the context of that verbiage above is inconsequential when compared to the reality of what the airline told me, and I'm sure everyone else who calls.

They encouraged notification at time of booking, and needed it 48 to 24 hours out.

Which mind you isn't unreasonable.

Whether legal, or not that's what's going on right now with a major airline.

And even reading that an alternate and fair interpretation of that written statement is that the documents are required hard period. You may, and we encourage you to submit them as far as 48 hours out. Don't know Delta wasn't the airline disability line I spoke with.



Pawtism said:


> I really will try to find the case for you though. I don't remember the names or I could probably google it. I only remember the gist of it. It was a hotel that wanted guests with service animals to flag that during registration (they claimed it was to "prepare" for the animal, the guest who filed suit claimed it was to put them in crappy rooms and they didn't need to do anything to "prepare), they showed a history of people who did flag it as such (I believe it was two other people that did flag it prior to the suit) getting crappy rooms, and they got an ex-employee to admit in court that the hotel did intentionally put people with service animals in their "worst" rooms (as to keep the others "nice" was effectively what they said). The court determined that this did amount to discrimination (duh), but more importantly they said that there is no reason any place of public accommodation would need to know about a service dog ahead of time for any nondiscriminatory reason. (translation is that the only reason anyone would need to know about a service dog ahead of time is for the sole purpose of discriminating).
> 
> If you could I would appreciate it. I'm interested because I understand that a lot of this is exactly because a lot of businesses if given half a chance would discriminate. I don't think there's much of a corollary between what that hotel tried to do and what a slight change in the way uber handles service animal rides would affect service animal rides.
> 
> ...





Pawtism said:


> Well, I suppose in theory, they could offer a discount to anyone who wanted to be identified as a service dog handler. That would allow them to collect said info, without violating current law. But it still wouldn't completely accomplish your goal. I, for one, would choose not to self identify for a discount, so you still wouldn't know I had one. I've experienced too much discrimination to trust that drivers wouldn't discriminate. Some would take the discount, some wouldn't. I'm not sure why everyone is so worried about this though, do you know what your odds of getting a pax with a real service dog are? Roughly one in every 1,000 rides. Some have gone many more rides (5,000 or so) and never had one.


Oh yeah sure, but as you note the level of angst over this among drivers seems through the roof in relation to the actual incidence of it. And I think a slight tweak from uber could fix that.

Also while I understand that you would not be willing to self identify I think perhaps many, if not most would. For starters having no hassles at the curb would be worth it on it's own, but the fact that a changed system would reduce, and even assist in prosecuting pax that are fraudulently requesting service animal rides would aid in the willingness to self identify.

I mean seriously doesn't it chap your @$$ that there are idiots out there fraudulently claiming their animals are service animals to obtain services they have no right to?


----------



## bostonwolf (Mar 25, 2016)

RiderOnTheStorm said:


> "NO."
> 
> Unlike lots of questions people have, this one is simple to answer.
> 
> ...


While this is all true, how many actual service animals have you actually transported?

Not support dogs. Service animals for people with a disability.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Iamfoodgod said:


> Close your nose.


Lol. YEAH! STOP BREATIN Mr. rude. Funny.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> My experience from a few hours ago was that "encouraged" within the context of that verbiage above is inconsequential when compared to the reality of what the airline told me, and I'm sure everyone else who calls.
> 
> They encouraged notification at time of booking, and needed it 48 to 24 hours out.
> 
> ...


I was going to reply showing the other airlines policies (and anyone else following along who is interested is welcome to go check them), but I wound up mentioning it in a private message so I won't bother.

As for the fakers, yeah, it does chap my behind (so to speak) that people fake them. It's not even about if they have a right or not to me. In faking their service dog, they are faking a disability. To me it's the same as getting in a wheel chair and claiming you're paralyzed if you aren't. On top of that, their fake "service dog" is a threat to my real service dog as there is no way to tell how a dog not trained will react. Maybe it will be fine, maybe it won't. Real service dogs go through a ton of testing and training to ensure they'll be ok. Fakes clearly haven't.

The bottom line is that many people have rehashed this same basic argument but there isn't a way to please everyone. Even with a voluntary system (which, in theory, could be setup for those who were willing), then you'd have the person who opted out but then got me as a non volunteer who was upset because they "opted out" why are they getting a service dog? You know? It turns into a no win situation real fast. I mentioned some other examples in the private message, but bottom line is everyone else has to do it, uber drivers are no different.



bostonwolf said:


> While this is all true, how many actual service animals have you actually transported?
> 
> Not support dogs. Service animals for people with a disability.


Those should be fairly rare. I don't know why people get so uptight about something that is so rare. Ask the 2 questions, identify the fakers, take the real ones (you know, the 1 or 2 you'll get in your entire driving career). Problem solved.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> I was going to reply showing the other airlines policies (and anyone else following along who is interested is welcome to go check them), but I wound up mentioning it in a private message so I won't bother.
> 
> As for the fakers, yeah, it does chap my behind (so to speak) that people fake them. It's not even about if they have a right or not to me. In faking their service dog, they are faking a disability. To me it's the same as getting in a wheel chair and claiming you're paralyzed if you aren't. On top of that, their fake "service dog" is a threat to my real service dog as there is no way to tell how a dog not trained will react. Maybe it will be fine, maybe it won't. Real service dogs go through a ton of testing and training to ensure they'll be ok. Fakes clearly haven't.
> 
> The bottom line is that many people have rehashed this same basic argument but there isn't a way to please everyone. Even with a voluntary system (which, in theory, could be setup for those who were willing), then you'd have the person who opted out but then got me as a non volunteer who was upset because they "opted out" why are they getting a service dog? You know? It turns into a no win situation real fast. I mentioned some other examples in the private message, but bottom line is everyone else has to do it, uber drivers are no different.


Ideally there wouldn't be an option to opt out, a reason either really, but I digress. If one needs a service animal ride one has to request it. I don't view that as unreasonable.

The law might say otherwise, don't know. And even if it did I would say that law under these circumstances should be challenged.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Ideally there wouldn't be an option to opt out, a reason either really, but I digress. If one needs a service animal ride one has to request it. I don't view that as unreasonable.
> 
> The law might say otherwise, don't know. And even if it did I would say that law under these circumstances should be challenged.


The law can certainly be changed (and has been at least 3 times thus far, most recently in 2013 I believe). However, each time they change it they seem to change it in the direction of more protection against discrimination, not less. Which means they'd be unlikely to support such a system.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> The law can certainly be changed (and has been at least 3 times thus far, most recently in 2013 I believe). However, each time they change it they seem to change it in the direction of more protection against discrimination, not less. Which means they'd be unlikely to support such a system.


There's no reason for them to object to the system if service animal pax are serviced, and they would be.

What it comes down to is what is the purpose of the law. It's really simple actually, make sure service animals are serviced, and if they are, which they would be under such a system, there is no issue.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> There's no reason for them to object to the system if service animal pax are serviced, and they would be.
> 
> What it comes down to is what is the purpose of the law. It's really simple actually, make sure service animals are serviced, and if they are, which they would be under such a system, there is no issue.


I just pointed out in the private message how they wouldn't be able to service everyone though. It's one of those systems that sounds good in theory, but as soon as you pick at the details a bit it unravels. I'll repeat the example here, for the benefit of the community. Out in the sticks there are often only one or two available drivers. If that one (or two) have "opted out", then it falls apart. Uber isn't going to send an employee out to the sticks to cover it when there are two perfectly capable drivers right there. They certainly aren't going to give a driver surge pay but not charge the pax it. It just falls apart, and is exactly why the ADA is written the way it is.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> I just pointed out in the private message how they wouldn't be able to service everyone though.


Lol and I kind of just pointed out how they could, and how in certain cases you mentioned the service could actually be quicker for service animal pax, but hey, you know, it's just an idea.

It's likely never to happen so it's really not worth investing that much effort in defending it you know?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Lol and I kind of just pointed out how they could, and how in certain cases you mentioned the service could actually be quicker for service animal pax, but hey, you know, it's just an idea.
> 
> It's likely never to happen so it's really not worth investing that much effort in defending it you know?


On that I'd agree. Even if we both put our heads together and came up with a workable plan, they'd almost certainly not accept it anyway.


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> There's no reason for them to object to the system if service animal pax are serviced, and they would be.


There are times in my area that I am the only driver online. What happened if I am opted out and Mr Jones and his service dog need to get to the Dr or pharmacy?


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

wk1102 said:


> There are times in my area that I am the only driver online. What happened if I am opted out and Mr Jones and his service dog need to get to the Dr or pharmacy?


It's accounted for, but frankly I don't feel like protracting the discussion any longer on a something that's not likely to happen.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> What you're posting isn't hard to understand, far from it, and my responses have made it clear I completely understand what you're posting.
> 
> That said your opinion is noted, and on it's face makes absolutely no sense given what you're stating would require uber to send a ping to a specific driver to handle that request based on what critera? Their criteria for sending a ping is already convoluted, but that's beside the point anyway.
> 
> ...


It appears that you're forgetting that the *driver* is the business entity variable in the equation here: drivers, as the business owners, must obey federal law, period. We as drivers do not get to "opt in" or "opt out" of following federal (or state) laws because we don't want to deal with them.

Take Uber out of the scenario - pretend they don't exist (since essentially that's how they've set it up for themselves - they're simply a way for drivers to get each individual ride connection but they're not controlling anything else supposedly).

Drivers can't randomly decide what laws they want to comply with and which ones they don't want to follow. Hence the all-powerful stance that we as drivers have no choice but to accept SERVICE ANIMALS into our vehicles. Uber doesn't get to decide that. Drivers don't get to decide that.

Drivers are their own business. We're each our own separate individual company, and we all have to obey what the law says we must. Just like any other business running in society. Period. No opting in or out, it just _is_.



RedSteel said:


> But why SHOULD they have to suffer through
> 
> It will cease to amaze me that because someone needs a dog to make them feel happy that they automatically become more important then someone that doesn't
> 
> ...


There are so many things wrong with this comment that I'm almost wondering if it's a spoof.

First off, starting with your first sentence: you're confusing SERVICE animals with Emotional Support Animals.......please educate yourself ASAP if you drive rideshare and plan on not being deactivated. Read the law and the links provided to you in this exact thread regarding service animals. PLEASE. I beg of you.

Service dogs do so many more things than provide help to seeing impaired people. That's one of hundreds of services these animals help with. Again, READ UP ON THIS SUBJECT IMMEDIATELY. Do not pass "Go" and do not collect $200....JUST BECOME INFORMED and don't post another comment until that happens.

Also, your/you're and general punctuation: try it. It works _wonders_ for making a point. Oy.



Pawtism said:


> I think you're confusing ESAs (the dogs that make you feel happy) with Service Animals (Epilepsy Alert, Guide Dogs, Sensory Overload (often called Autism Dogs), Allergen Dogs, Diabetes Alert, you know, dogs that have actual tasks that can literally be the difference between life and death). You stated "It will cease to amaze me that because someone needs a dog to make them feel happy that they automatically become more important then someone that doesn't" which leads me to this conclusion. ESAs (the dogs that make you feel happy) are NOT service dogs and you are not required to take them. You clearly have never been around a real service dog, as if you had, you wouldn't describe them as "destructive". You're creating your own biases, and then using them to qualify your argument. Stop and think it through first. What is it you are actually against? ESAs? I'll actually agree with you on that one. Fake Service Dogs (which may or may not be "destructive", but at least have the potential to be)? Again, I'll agree with you on that. Are you actually against someone having a life saving device with them? If so, then you are probably discriminatory and really should rethink your life. I'd like to believe you aren't actually against that though.
> 
> Take an epileptic for example. Since you don't seem to really know much about how actual service dogs work, let me explain. The dog, somehow (only about 1/3 of dogs are even capable of doing it, I'd be lying if I said I completely understood how), can tell when a seizure is coming and can give a 5 minute or so warning prior to it happening. This gives the epileptic time to get to a safe spot, let someone nearby know what is about to happen (or even call 911 for themselves), and get into a safe position (put in a mouth guard, lay down somewhere safe, etc). That is literally life changing (and saving) for them. When you say things like "It will cease to amaze me that because someone needs a dog to make them feel happy that they automatically become more important then someone that doesn't" that translates to "I'm so arrogant and self important that a little bit of fur on my floorboard that would take 1 minute to vacuum up is much more important than that person's life" (to someone who hasn't recognized that you might be mistaking ESAs and service dogs, anyway). You have to understand, this is literally life and death. No offense, but yeah, you can deal with a little fur on your floorboard. Be thankful you don't have to go through life as they do.
> 
> Btw, as for the "I pay for the car", their service dog is worth more than most cars (at least those being used for Uber/Lyft). You voluntarily entered your car into public service, if you don't want it in public service, quit going online with Uber/Lyft and it will be a private car once again. Stop and think through what you are actually against.


Aaaaaand, the microphone drop could be heard across the land........


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> Progress is a beautiful thing really.
> 
> were Uber to create a separate class of service which gives them the ability to tell when transport for a service animal was required there's nothing unreasonable about it.


HUH?

Uber tried that with the wheelchair bound customers in this market. They were addressing the demand through the Uber Taxi platform. The do-gooders sued them, anyhow. In fact, although the suit has not yet been finally disposed, Uber is _*still*_ meeting most of the accessible demand through the Uber Taxi platform. There is Uber Assist and Uber WAV, here, but most of the time, there is nothing available on those two. Uber is having a hard time getting drivers to pay 2018 costs to convert a vehicle to haul customers for UberX's 1979 cab rates.

If Uber allowed drivers to opt in and out, and, there were no drivers available for the animals, Uber could be sued. There was a taxi hailing application from Germany, MyTaxi (which is now merged with Hail-O), which operated for a couple of years in Washington. When a driver signed up, he was asked if he would accept animals (animals in general, service or otherwise was not mentioned, although ADA was in effect, at the time). I received several customers from that application who had dogs. When I was shown the request, and, when I accepted it, there was no indicator that there was a dog. I accepted the dogs anyhow, as I like dogs (with the exception of Doberman pinschers and toy or miniature poodles--Standard poodles are great, though). I asked the customer about it. Every one of them told me that when they put in the request and indicated the presence of the dog, suddenly no cabs were available. The MyTaxi experience suggests that most drivers would opt out of hauling animals, thus customers who had them might have difficulty getting a ride.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Julescase said:


> It appears that you're forgetting that the *driver* is the business entity variable in the equation here: drivers, as the business owners, must obey federal law, period. We as drivers do not get to "opt in" or "opt out" of following federal (or state) laws because we don't want to deal with them.


No I wasn't forgetting. In fact at one point I was wondering when someone would bring up the driver/contractor vs employee issue. I almost brought it up myself but then I decided it wasn't worth the effort for something that wasn't going to happen regardless. Suffice to say that's the current way uber handles it and there's no impediment to uber implementing the suggestion except for it's desire to maintain the fiction that it doesn't exercise employer power over its drivers.



Another Uber Driver said:


> HUH?
> 
> Uber tried that with the wheelchair bound customers in this market. They were addressing the demand through the Uber Taxi platform.


Handling through taxis is not what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting is completely doable through x, or pretty much any level of service.

Two different types of service with two different requirements between wheelchair accessible and service animal accessible.

Your comparison is invalid, and thus the conclusions you draw from it are at best suspect.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> Your comparison is invalid


You can call my comparison anything that you like. I do not care. What is unfortunate for you and any who might agree with you is that your consideration of the validity (or lack thereof) of my comparison is not what rules. What does rule is the law, the courts and the do-gooders. They consider my comparison valid.

I might not even consider my comparison valid, and, my considerations do not rule, either. As long as the law and the courts consider it valid, 
the do-gooders will continue to advocate and sue.............................and win.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> The point of the law is to ensure that service animals be transported. If the service animal is transported seamlessly then the law has succeeded. This is kind of a slippery slope argument because if you're going to argue this, what's to stop someone from arguing that passing on a ping that's associated with a request from a pax with a service animal could also be illegal? You wouldn't argue that because reasonably if one doesn't know the ping was associated with a service animal request how could you be responsible for breaking the law? So lets extend that if you never get a ping for a service support animal how can you be accused of breaking the law in the first place?
> 
> If you note a preference for no animals in your vehicle, and uber honors that request and forwards the ping to a driver without that preference, and the service animal gets a ride, no harm no foul. That's just one more in a myriad of floating criteria uber utilizes in determining which way to route a ping for any given pax.
> 
> In addition to that how would you prove a law was broken if the intent of the law is to secure transportation for a service animal and the service animal successfully requested, and received that transportation. The process is seamless to pax neither they nor the agencies involved even have a clue what's going on in the background, but more importantly if the intent of the law - service animal gets a ride - is met why would they even care.


*If you note a preference for no animals in your vehicle, and uber honors that request and forwards the ping to a driver without that preference, and the service animal gets a ride,*

Just making this point again because the particular (above) sentence stood out - as small businesses, we as drivers cannot "note a preference for no animals in [our] vehicle " - taking all other ADA issues out of the equation, we as drivers need to remember that we are each separate small businesses- every single one of us. And as businesses functioning in the USA, we each must abide by our state and federal laws. We can't simply decide we don't want to deal with the law telling us to accept all service animals. That would be like deciding I don't want to stop at any red lights I encounter. Or I don't want to accept any passengers who use canes to help them walk. It's not an option nor are we able to think in those terms.

*Putting everything else aside - a dislike of dogs, fur, dirt, dander, or whatever else drivers think accepting a service dog might entail during their time driving rideshare, remember that each car out on the road functioning as an Uber or Lyft is a business. A separate, individual, small business that is owed by the person driving the car. That small business must comply with federal and state law, period. Drivers don't have the ability or option to pick and choose which laws they'll follow while running their business. It doesn't work that way.*


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Julescase said:


> *If you note a preference for no animals in your vehicle, and uber honors that request and forwards the ping to a driver without that preference, and the service animal gets a ride,*
> 
> Just making this point again because the particular (above) sentence stood out - as small businesses, we as drivers cannot "note a preference for no animals in [our] vehicle " -


Sure you can the only thing stopping you from doing that is the fact uber doesn't have that as an option. Again present state of affairs. If a driver chooses as a preference not to have animals in their car they haven't stated they will not accept service animals they've simply stated a preference for not having animals in their car, that's no different from the current state without uber acknowledging the preference. And so if uber honors that no animals preferred request when assigning pings no law has been broken because a ping was sent, accepted, and the service animal was picked up. Done, and done.

And if one is going to argue that incidence of of service animal pax requests is minimal, which they are, then that's really undercutting an argument that there would then be too few available drivers to handle the requests.



Another Uber Driver said:


> You can call my comparison anything that you like. I do not care.


Ok. Thanks. I'll call it invalid and not a comparison between like items. Far from it in fact. What do-gooders might do is a moot point since the idea would never happen, but even if it went into action we would have to wait and see wouldn't we, and since the service animal pax requested and received a ride I doubt we would see any lawsuits claiming the law was broken.

But again we won't ever see one way or another because this isn't likely to make it into uber policy.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> Ok. Thanks. I'll call it invalid and not a comparison between like items. Far from it in fact. What do-gooders might do is a moot point since the idea would never happen, but even if it went into action we would have to wait and see wouldn't we, and since the service animal pax requested and received a ride I doubt we would see any lawsuits claiming the law was broken.
> 
> But again we won't ever see one way or another because this isn't likely to make it into uber policy.


HUH?


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> Sure you can the only thing stopping you from doing that is the fact uber doesn't have that as an option. Again present state of affairs. If a driver chooses as a preference not to have animals in their car they haven't stated they will not accept service animals they've simply stated a preference for not having animals in their car, that's no different from the current state without uber acknowledging the preference. And so if uber honors that no animals preferred request when assigning pings no law has been broken because a ping was sent, accepted, and the service animal was picked up. Done, and done.
> 
> And if one is going to argue that incidence of of service animal pax requests is minimal, which they are, then that's really undercutting an argument that there would then be too few available drivers to handle the requests.
> 
> ...


 allowing you to make that preference on their platform would require them putting that ability into the algorithm. That makes them complicit in the crime that you want to perpetrate. It becomes a conspiracy, with both you and Uber guilty of discrimination and violating someone's civil rights. It leaves both of you open to all sorts of lawsuits, any applicable fines, etc. Also, I believe that is Uber were to violate the settlement that they made with the people who already sued them over this issue, the settlement becomes null and void and the lawsuit is back in play. Not sure if the people would get to keep the settlement money and then still sue for the other money though. That's an interesting question.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> allowing you to make that preference on their platform would require them putting that ability into the algorithm. That makes them complicit in the crime that you want to perpetrate. It becomes a conspiracy, with both you and Uber guilty of discrimination and violating someone's civil rights. It leaves both of you open to all sorts of lawsuits, any applicable fines, etc. Also, I believe that is Uber were to violate the settlement that they made with the people who already sued them over this issue, the settlement becomes null and void and the lawsuit is back in play. Not sure if the people would get to keep the settlement money and then still sue for the other money though. That's an interesting question.


Most likely they had something on the settlement agreement (I haven't seen all of it) stipulating what would happen if it were violated. Typically speaking a separate fine is laid out, or the option of resuing for violation of the settlement agreement would be some options. They'd (the association for the blind) likely keep the money (unless of course they were to be the one to violate it, which I can't imagine but you never know).

I'm sure they have to give a certain number of warnings first, etc


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> allowing you to make that preference on their platform would require them putting that ability into the algorithm.


If the service animal receives a ride no crime has been committed.

If a driver states a preference for no animals without respect to service animals, and uber accepts that preference, and shoots that service animal request ping to a driver without that stated preference the service animal receives a ride, the driver with the preference refused no ride, refused no service animal, and therefore no crime has been committed by that driver, or by uber since it's met it's responsibility to forward the ride request which was subsequently fulfilled.

The net result is the service animal receives a requested ride. Both the letter and the intent of the law were satisfied.

I'm done here this discussion is a waste of time because that suggested fix for the issue, would fix the issue, concerns about it's ability to do so notwithstanding, but it's not getting implemented so we're never going to know for sure if it would work. Nothing presented so far legally precludes the suggestion from being attempted, and even if it turned out it currently does in some tangential way that needs a good legal challenge because the suggested fix is perfectly reasonable and accomplishes the both the letter and intent of the actual law. That said I feel no urge to defend it any longer, especially against what are essentially the same complaints over and over.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Sure you can the only thing stopping you from doing that is the fact uber doesn't have that as an option. Again present state of affairs. If a driver chooses as a preference not to have animals in their car they haven't stated they will not accept service animals they've simply stated a preference for not having animals in their car, that's no different from the current state without uber acknowledging the preference. And so if uber honors that no animals preferred request when assigning pings no law has been broken because a ping was sent, accepted, and the service animal was picked up. Done, and done.
> 
> And if one is going to argue that incidence of of service animal pax requests is minimal, which they are, then that's really undercutting an argument that there would then be too few available drivers to handle the requests.
> 
> ...


*"Sure you can the only thing stopping you from doing that is the fact uber doesn't have that as an option."*

No - again, you're either not grasping this concept or you're simply refusing to acknowledge the facts. The "only" thing stopping drivers from having the ability to "opt out" or "opt in" is the Federal Law that states drivers (as small businesses) must accept all service dogs into their vehicles while driving rideshare for U/L.

Try putting aside your concept of opting in or out of rides that would create any form of discrimination - that's illegal and won't ever be a thing. You keep circling back to it, yet won't acknowledge it cannot legally occur. It's not gonna happen. Nope. Never. Can't. It's illegal. Hence, not happening - ever. There's no opting in or out of rides based on a person's status of race, religion, age, or disability. ALL of those are protected and we will never see a time when they won't be. If anything, we'll see additional folks protected - but I promise you won't be able to discriminate (ie opt in or out of accepting rides for certain people of various protected statuses) based on their disabilities or religion or age or race........

that's what this entire argument boils down to. Substitute the words "opt out of driving" with "discriminate against" and you should get the idea. Can we opt out of driving someone with a service dog? Can we discriminate against someone with a service dog?


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Julescase said:


> No - again, you're either not grasping this concept or you're simply refusing to acknowledge the facts.


With statements like this you're personalizing the debate. I don't particularly care for engaging in that type of debate style. It's counter productive.



Julescase said:


> *"Sure you can the only thing stopping you from doing that is the fact uber doesn't have that as an option."*
> 
> No - again, you're either not grasping this concept or you're simply refusing to acknowledge the facts. The "only" thing stopping drivers from having the ability to "opt out" or "opt in" is the Federal Law that states drivers (as small businesses) must accept all service dogs into their vehicles while driving rideshare for U/L.


Simply repeating yourself doesn't change the facts, or my reply to you. Please see above where I've already addressed your concerns. You may not like the response but it's not going to change no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

That said:

I'm done here this discussion is a waste of time because that suggested fix for the issue, would fix the issue, concerns about it's ability to do so notwithstanding, but it's not getting implemented so we're never going to know for sure if it would work. Nothing presented so far legally precludes the suggestion from being attempted, and even if it turned out it currently does in some tangential way that needs a good legal challenge because the suggested fix is perfectly reasonable and accomplishes the both the letter and intent of the actual law. That said I feel no urge to defend it any longer, especially against what are essentially the same complaints over and over.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> If the service animal receives a ride no crime has been committed.
> 
> If a driver states a preference for no animals without respect to service animals, and uber accepts that preference, and shoots that service animal request ping to a driver without that stated preference the service animal receives a ride, the driver with the preference refused no ride, refused no service animal, and therefore no crime has been committed by that driver, or by uber since it's met it's responsibility to forward the ride request which was subsequently fulfilled.
> 
> ...


If a driver refuses to take a service dog, regardless of the fact of another driver willingly doing so, a crime has been committed by the first driver. If Uber has deliberately created a way for the first driver to commit that crime, they have conspired with him or her to do so.

If this option was put out there, almost every driver would opt out. That is the problem. Also, you have issues where at certain times or in certain areas, the driver pool is thin. You cannot make someone with a service dog wait any longer then they would if they did not have a service dog. This is called discrimination, and it is against the law. It is a violation of civil rights.

I don't know how to explain this any more plainly.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

We know you mean well Wonky, but you're thinking of us as uber employees (with uber being the "company" being in control). What we're trying to explain is that each individual driver, is their own company, uber is a platform that puts bids out, they are required (by law, not policy) to put those bids out equally. Likewise, you, me, and every other driver are required to consider those bids without any bias to a protected class (race, religion, disability) that doesn't affect our ability to take them (we can't physically fit a powered wheelchair in our cars, but crutches, a service dog, even a small O2 tank will fit, thus we can't consider those things). Them telling us that one of the pax has a service dog, is illegal because it introduces a bias. Just like them telling us that a pax is *insert race here*, or a *insert religion here*, etc., would introduce a bias. Now if the pax wants to volunteer that info, like with a picture, or a text, or via their name (my name "Pawtism" pretty much identifies me as Autistic, but I volunteered that info), etc., then they are certainly welcome to do that. But uber themselves can not. You're looking at it only from a systems point of view, you're not accepting the legality (or in this case, illegality) of it all. The problem here isn't with the "system" you're thinking of, it's a legal problem now.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> If a driver refuses to take a service dog,


I'm done here this discussion is a waste of time because that suggested fix for the issue, would fix the issue, concerns about it's ability to do so notwithstanding, but it's not getting implemented so we're never going to know for sure if it would work. Nothing presented so far legally precludes the suggestion from being attempted, and even if it turned out it currently does in some tangential way that needs a good legal challenge because the suggested fix is perfectly reasonable and accomplishes the both the letter and intent of the actual law. That said I feel no urge to defend it any longer, especially against what are essentially the same complaints over and over.



Pawtism said:


> We know you mean well Wonky, but you're thinking of us as uber employees (with uber being the "company" being in control).


It's not really about meaning well Pawtism. I see a problem and offered a solution that would work if implemented.

Nothing anyone has posted so far precludes that though I know a few well meaning people believe they have.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> It's not really about meaning well Pawtism. I see a problem and offered a solution that would work if implemented.
> 
> Nothing anyone has posted so far precludes that though I know a few well meaning people believe they have.


That's because you refuse to accept that it would be illegal. I can't claim to be an expert on system analysis, but I can claim to be an expert on the ADA service dog laws. While the system itself might work if implemented, it would be illegal and wouldn't last long as it would be challenged pretty quickly. However, it's probably best to just let it go at this point.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> That's because you refuse to accept that it would be illegal.


The independent contractor aspect has absolutely no bearing in this because all work, all pings come through uber. If you're not getting service animal pings you're not denying them and therefore aren't breaking any laws.

If a driver sets a no animals preferred toggle, not a no animals allowed toggle, a no animals preferred toggle, that's all they're doing they're not asserting, or affirming they will not take service animals, and if uber chooses to route service animal requests to drivers without that preference toggled so be it. It's better for everyone involved especially the service animal pax, and there's nothing illegal occurring since a driver was dispatched to the service animal pax, and the animal received a ride.

There's no loss to anyone there, and a hassle free curbside for the service animal pax, and presumably, hell most likely, a hell of a lot less fraudulent service animal requests.

That marks the last time I'm going to explain that. Some of you don't like that response and keep repeating the same arguments. My answer to those arguments isn't going to change any more than yours are most likely, because what I've stated above circumvents the concerns you're raising. A legal challenge is the only way this gets resolved and it's never going to happen, and most likely wouldn't even if implemented because the service animal pax will have seamlessly received a ride which is the intent of the law after all and there would be no reason for that pax to file a complaint with the regulating agency.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> The independent contractor aspect has absolutely no bearing in this because all work, all pings come through uber. If you're not getting service animal pings you're not denying them and therefore aren't breaking any laws.
> 
> If a driver sets a no animals preferred toggle, not a no animals allowed toggle, a no animals preferred toggle, that's all they're doing they're not asserting, or affirming they will not take service animals, and if uber chooses to route service animal requests to drivers without that preference toggled so be it. It's better for everyone involved especially the service animal pax, and there's nothing illegal occurring since a driver was dispatched to the service animal pax, and the animal received a ride.
> 
> ...


And, yet again, you aren't accepting that Uber is issuing bids (to it's independent contractors) and it can't discriminate in those bids. You can't say "I'd rather not take blacks." or "I'd rather not take disabled people" or any other protected class. The specific medical device they use (the service dog) is irrelevant and specifically has to be ignored. Do a little research, there HAVE been legal challenges on this, many actually, far too many to list here. They almost always wind up in a settlement (as few people take it all the way to a decision in court once it becomes apparent they are going to lose). In fact, Uber specifically was sued because they refused to take any action against those independent businesses (drivers) who were directly discriminating on the bids (after accepting them). They too were going to lose, and settled (for over 2 million dollars btw) because they saw there was no way they could win that battle.

You're proceeding from a place of ignorance to the law (I say that not insultingly, but literally, meaning you just don't know and haven't done your research). You keep saying you're done with it, but yet you keep trying to defend a system that can't work (because it's illegal, I'm not saying the system itself wouldn't work.. well, I did find some flaws, but that's not my point, my point is it's an illegal system). If you want to keep defending it, then I challenge you to find even one example, in the US, where a system like this can work. I can show you several where it has failed. The cab companies tried it (and failed, and they are the closest analog to ubers), restaurants have tried it and failed, hotels have tried it, and failed. Show me one example where they've been able to make that work (I'll save you some time if you wish, you won't be able to find one, because it doesn't exist), and we'll talk about it. Otherwise, you keep saying you're done... maybe it's time to be done?


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> And, yet again, you aren't accepting that Uber is issuing bids (to it's independent contractors) and it can't discriminate in those bids.


If a driver sets a preference Uber honoring that preference is not discrimination.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> If a driver sets a preference Uber honoring that preference is not discrimination.


Actually it is. Just as if they said they'd prefer not to take blacks, or Muslims, or pregnant women (all protected classes too), that's the point of a protected class (and the point you seem to be missing).

BTW, as further proof it's a specific legal problem with the ADA. Take a look at Canada and the UK. Both have fairly strong service dog protections, but one major difference there is that, if you can get a certificate (which would take evidence from like a doctor, proving you have strong allergies, etc), you can be exempted there. I'm not sure about Uber's there (as I haven't researched that) but for cab companies, if you get the certificate, they won't send you to a call that they know has a service animal, and you can refuse one there if you happen upon one (although you do have to arrange for another driver). The reason they can do this and we can't is the ADA is setup differently here.

In fact, in the UK I believe you can even get a certificate for religion reasons too.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Actually it is. Just as if they said they'd prefer not to take blacks, or Muslims, or pregnant women (all protected classes too), that's the point of a protected class (and the point you seem to be missing).


When a preference for no animals in one's car becomes people I'll take that into account until then no discrimination against people has occurred.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> When a preference for no animals in one's car becomes people I'll take that into account until then no discrimination against people has occurred.


So perhaps the flaw in your logic is that you're thinking of service dogs as "animals" (btw, people are animals too). Legally, they are not animals, they are durable medical equipment (literally the same, legally, as crutches, for example). This is exactly why "no pet" policies have to be ignored (they aren't pets), no animal policies, for say restaurants, have to be ignored (they aren't animals), etc. So you can have a "no animals" preference (that's not a protected class), but that's not going to affect service dogs one way or the other. If they did include service dogs (medical equipment for a disability) into the bid, without a legally justifiable reason (size for example, think power wheelchairs), it does become discrimination (against the disabled).

BTW, this is also why they can't warn drivers that someone might have a collapsible wheelchair. Again, I can volunteer that info (send you a text, put it in my profile, set my name to "Wheels", take a picture of me in the wheelchair and use it, etc), but uber can't just include it as part of the bid. The service dog isn't the one legally protected, the disabled handler is, and they can't be discriminated against for their durable medical equipment.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> So perhaps the flaw in your logic


Or perhaps I simply don't accept your offering as a valid comparison.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Or perhaps I simply don't accept your offering as a valid comparison.


You can choose to ignore reality if you wish, I certainly have no control over that. I'm simply informing you of legal facts. You're welcome to go independently confirm them through your own research (or consult your own attorney if you doubt my skill). The disabled handler is the one who is legally protected, and service dogs are durable medical equipment. These are legal facts, easily provable with a little research.

They're also tax deductible, assuming you have enough deductions to make itemizing worthwhile (which I did, although with the new tax plan in place, I probably won't this year).


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

Having a preference for animals and being allergic to animals are two different things. 

I have an Enhanced CDL-A with Hazmat and all the other bells and whistles. Clearances from Homeland Security and TSA. I can no longer drive Semi's because I developed asthma so severe that I kept getting pneumonia 2 to 3 times a year from the high exposure to diesel fumes. I still have a valid CDL, but my medical condition means trucking is a job description I can no longer do. Likewise I should never pursue a job in fiberglass installation, duct cleaning, or a saw mill. Having an Allergy to animals, having chemical sensitivity, an allergy to cigarette smoke/ perfumes, means that person can not work in an environment that places them around these things. If you have these type of sensitivities, then that means simply you cannot work in that type of job field, and as a Pax, surely that means you can't use public transportation. It sucks! I know. I had to leave a $66,000 a year trucking job because of my sensitivity to diesel fumes and now I'm a starting over as a college student because of this.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Lissetti said:


> Having a preference for animals and being allergic to animals are two different things.
> 
> I have an Enhanced CDL-A with Hazmat and all the other bells and whistles. Clearances from Homeland Security and TSA. I can no longer drive Semi's because I developed asthma so severe that I kept getting pneumonia 2 to 3 times a year from the high exposure to diesel fumes. I still have a valid CDL, but my medical condition means trucking is a job description I can no longer do. Likewise I should never pursue a job in fiberglass installation, duct cleaning, or a saw mill. Having an Allergy to animals, having chemical sensitivity, an allergy to cigarette smoke/ perfumes, means that person can not work in an environment that places them around these things. If you have these type of sensitivities, then that means simply you cannot work in that type of job field, and as a Pax, surely that means you can't use public transportation. It sucks! I know. I had to leave a $66,000 a year trucking job because of my sensitivity to diesel fumes and now I'm a starting over as a college student because of this.


Oh nice! I just had to give up my CDL (doc finally pulled my clearance), although I hadn't actually driven a rig for quite some time anyway (like over a decade hehe, but I did keep the CDL active, just in case).

Sorry to hear that you had to stop though.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> You can choose to ignore reality if you wish, I certainly have no control over that. I'm simply informing you of legal facts.


There has been nothing posted on this topic to date that would legally preclude this option. Nothing. Speculation to the contrary notwithstanding of course.

I'll stay away from making statements of a personal nature concerning perceived shortcomings in their debate styles because it's frankly pointless, and changes nothing.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Lissetti said:


> Having a preference for animals and being allergic to animals are two different things.
> 
> I have an Enhanced CDL-A with Hazmat and all the other bells and whistles. Clearances from Homeland Security and TSA. I can no longer drive Semi's because I developed asthma so severe that I kept getting pneumonia 2 to 3 times a year from the high exposure to diesel fumes. I still have a valid CDL, but my medical condition means trucking is a job description I can no longer do. Likewise I should never pursue a job in fiberglass installation, duct cleaning, or a saw mill. Having an Allergy to animals, having chemical sensitivity, an allergy to cigarette smoke/ perfumes, means that person can not work in an environment that places them around these things. If you have these type of sensitivities, then that means simply you cannot work in that type of job field, and as a Pax, surely that means you can't use public transportation. It sucks! I know. I had to leave a $66,000 a year trucking job because of my sensitivity to diesel fumes and now I'm a starting over as a college student because of this.


Exactly. This is why they call it being "disabled".

Service Animals help, but they're not allowed everywhere either. You can't have a service animal with you at work if you work in a commercial kitchen or School cafeterias, for example. Whether the disabled person with a service animal is a medical professional for the patient, the dog cannot come into the surgical theater. Probably not in pre-op, post-op, or recovery, either. Regular hospital rooms may be a different issue.

Regardless of the ADA, a wheelchair is not going to make it up into the torch of the Statue of Liberty, either. There are stairs, and in places, no elevator. It's an historical structure, and putting an elevator in every last spot wood compromise that historical aspect, so they do not have to comply more than they are able to.

As the law stands, as much a commendation as possible needs to be extended to people with disabilities. It's the only way that they can come anywhere near a typical life (I hate the word "normal" with regard to disabilities), and no matter what is done, there are still going to be quite a bit that cannot be accommodated, and that the disabled person is not going to be able to do.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> There has been nothing posted on this topic to date that would legally preclude this option. Nothing. Speculation to the contrary notwithstanding of course.
> 
> I'll stay away from making statements of a personal nature concerning perceived shortcomings in their debate styles because it's frankly pointless, and changes nothing.


Nothing would preclude an option for "no animals", but I've (and a few others have) given several examples of what would preclude service dogs from being included in that. I'm really sorry that you refuse to accept it. It does happen to be legal fact though (and more importantly, it's already been attempted). The cab companies tried to do this (and they were actual employees). They tried to send another driver when one wasn't comfortable with service dogs, and they were sued. That's why no cab company does that anymore. They can't, it's not legal. I tell you what, why don't you ask the DOJ directly? They have an ADA information line where you can ask questions like that. Ask them if you don't want to believe me. I mean no disrespect but I have way more legal training than you likely do, I'm not sure why you would doubt me on this so much, but go ask them. 1-800-514-0301



SuzeCB said:


> Exactly. This is why they call it being "disabled".
> 
> Service Animals help, but they're not allowed everywhere either. You can't have a service animal with you at work if you work in a commercial kitchen or School cafeterias, for example. Whether the disabled person with a service animal is a medical professional for the patient, the dog cannot come into the surgical theater. Probably not in pre-op, post-op, or recovery, either. Regular hospital rooms may be a different issue.
> 
> ...


Very true, I actually wanted to be a cop (which probably explains my love for the law hehe). Alas, my disabilities (even with a service dog, which would have been interesting hehe) preclude it. If I wanted to be a chef (I don't), I'd probably not be able to do that either (because of the service dog specifically). I admit the ADA does much (as much as it reasonably can really) to help, but some things are just not possible. While having a service dog (as durable medical equipment) in the dining area really isn't an issue, having it next to the grill could be (for her safety, co-workers safety, and ultimately for the food). Likewise, if I was on O2, I probably couldn't work as a "fireman" on an old west style train or as a firefighter for a city (too much risk for explosion). As you said, and as Lissetti eluded to, that's why they're called "disabilities", the best we can do is work around them.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Nothing would preclude an option for "no animals", /QUOTE]


A communicated "_*preference for*_ no animals", _*not *_"no animals" there's a universe of difference in the two statements.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> A communicated "_*preference for*_ no animals", _*not *_"no animals" there's a universe of difference in the two statements.


You could do either actually ("animals" aren't a protected class). You could state a "preference for no animals" or, even outright state "no animals". Neither of those is going to affect a service dog though. Just like your hotel can say "no pets" or "no animals" (or even "we prefer you not bring an animal"), and none of that will affect a service dog either. The health code can say "no animals" (somehow I don't think they could get away with "prefer no animals"), and yet... it won't affect a service dog either.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> Exactly. This is why they call it being "disabled".
> 
> Service Animals help, but they're not allowed everywhere either. You can't have a service animal with you at work if you work in a commercial kitchen or School cafeterias, for example. Whether the disabled person with a service animal is a medical professional for the patient, the dog cannot come into the surgical theater. Probably not in pre-op, post-op, or recovery, either. Regular hospital rooms may be a different issue.
> 
> ...


Yep, taken straight from the law:










Note the words _reasonable _and _undue hardship._

_https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm_



Pawtism said:


> Oh nice! I just had to give up my CDL (doc finally pulled my clearance), although I hadn't actually driven a rig for quite some time anyway (like over a decade hehe, but I did keep the CDL active, just in case).
> 
> Sorry to hear that you had to stop though.


Yep and the law also says someone with epilepsy, nerve damage to extremities, blindness, hearing disorders.... can not obtain a CDL. Those are all disabilities, but not every person has a right to every job. I still have my CDL. I keep it for those clearances, but don't pity me. remember I'm in school for computer programming now.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> You could do either actually ("animals" aren't a protected class). You could state a "preference for no animals" or, even outright state "no animals". Neither of those is going to affect a service dog though.


Of course not and I'm not saying they would. I'm saying that stating that preference and uber honoring that preference and forwarding pings accordingly doesn't present a case where a driver is refusing to take a service animal. Since a service animal is never refused by a specific driver that driver broke no law.

And since the service animal requested, and received a ride there is no violation of either the intent, or the letter of the law.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Of course not and I'm not saying they would. I'm saying that stating that preference and uber honoring that preference and forwarding pings accordingly doesn't present a case where a driver is refusing to take a service animal. Since a service animal is never refused by a specific driver that driver broke no law.
> 
> And since the service animal requested, and received a ride there is no violation of either the intent, or the letter of the law.


But you're still missing the part where 1. I don't have to tell uber that I have a service animal. and 2. Uber can't mention it in the bid. In fact, even if I had a power wheelchair, if I didn't order a WAV, they can't mention it specifically. Of course you can refuse me citing size restrictions (and if you're smart you'll wait the 5 mins to collect your fee for my wasting your time), so it would be silly of me to do, but I could if I wanted.

So again, you flag "no animals", I order an Uber, you have no idea I have a service dog (because I've chosen not to tick on the flag that says I have an animal), you come to get me. Now you're mad because you thought you had "opted out" of "animals", and you still have to take me (or face the consequences of rejecting me, which, depending on your state, could actually include jail time and a criminal record). How exactly do you see that as a win?

Even if I do flag myself as having an "animal", you're under the impression that uber will pay 5x surge (out of their own pocket as they can't charge me it) to get a driver to be willing to take me when others in the area are "opted out". Yeah, that's gonna happen.  Then, not to mention the fatal flaw of a situation where is only one driver in the area, and they aren't willing to take an "animal" for even 100x surge.. one of those "no way, no how, I'll take the deactivation first" types. Now what? Surely you don't honestly believe that uber is going to send an employee out into the sticks to get this pax (or that the pax would be ok with waiting for that without suing)?

Not to mention the lawsuit that is coming when I have to wait an extra 5+ minutes for a ride that I shouldn't have had to (believe it or not, that's considered an undue burden and is discrimination). Again, you haven't really thought it all through. You came up with a system that, if all parts were legal (and they aren't) and everyone cooperated (yeah, since when has that happened), might theoretically work, but even a hint of "real world" challenges, and it falls apart. It's a nice idea, it's just, sadly, completely illegal and thus can't happen (when it comes to service dogs, I suppose it would work fine for any other animals, either people would pay more to find someone willing to transport their pets or they wouldn't).


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> But you're still missing the part where 1. I don't have to tell uber that I have a service animal. and


No I'm not. You've spoken about case law that establishes that but I haven't seen anything actually posted supporting that, and even if you did post it for a specific case it would have to speak specifically to this case, otherwise it's for the courts to decide. From the details you've given so far the cases aren't anywhere near each other in terms of intended action.

Given that service animals get rides without an issue seamlessly, and have no problems at the curb, ever, I doubt it ever goes to court and if it did I'm betting it would go in uber's favor, but it won't go to court because uber isn't likley to move in the right direction on this, so it's really just a moot point you can throw speculation at left and right but ultimately won't get resolved.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> Nothing would preclude an option for "no animals", but I've (and a few others have) given several examples of what would preclude service dogs from being included in that. I'm really sorry that you refuse to accept it. It does happen to be legal fact though (and more importantly, it's already been attempted). The cab companies tried to do this (and they were actual employees). They tried to send another driver when one wasn't comfortable with service dogs, and they were sued. That's why no cab company does that anymore. They can't, it's not legal. I tell you what, why don't you ask the DOJ directly? They have an ADA information line where you can ask questions like that. Ask them if you don't want to believe me. I mean no disrespect but I have way more legal training than you likely do, I'm not sure why you would doubt me on this so much, but go ask them. 1-800-514-0301
> 
> Very true, I actually wanted to be a cop (which probably explains my love for the law hehe). Alas, my disabilities (even with a service dog, which would have been interesting hehe) preclude it. If I wanted to be a chef (I don't), I'd probably not be able to do that either (because of the service dog specifically). I admit the ADA does much (as much as it reasonably can really) to help, but some things are just not possible. While having a service dog (as durable medical equipment) in the dining area really isn't an issue, having it next to the grill could be (for her safety, co-workers safety, and ultimately for the food). Likewise, if I was on O2, I probably couldn't work as a "fireman" on an old west style train or as a firefighter for a city (too much risk for explosion). As you said, and as Lissetti eluded to, that's why they're called "disabilities", the best we can do is work around them.


You are a Gentleman and a Scholar, Sir. Know what'd be cool? You as a Cop with your K9 Service Animal!


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> No I'm not. You've spoken about case law that establishes that but I haven't seen anything actually posted supporting that, and even if you did post it for a specific case it would have to speak specifically to this case, otherwise it's for the courts to decide. From the details you've given so far the cases aren't anywhere near each other in terms of intended action.
> 
> Given that service animals get rides without an issue seamlessly, and have no problems at the curb, ever, I doubt it ever goes to court and if it did I'm betting it would go in uber's favor, but it won't go to court because uber isn't likley to move in the right direction on this, so it's really just a moot point you can throw speculation at left and right but ultimately won't get resolved.


You ignored my question, per your plan, what happens when you show up thinking you've "opted out" and I have a service dog?



UberLaLa said:


> You are a Gentleman and a Scholar, Sir. Know what'd be cool? You as a Cop with your K9 Service Animal!


That would be pretty cool.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> You ignored my question, per your plan, what happens when you show up thinking you've "opted out" and I have a service dog?


I'm not going to engage in every possible what if scenario someone can dream up. That's a pointless waste of time. Once the toggle has been set and confirmed via email it's a done deal. The driver isn't going to get a ping for animals. I'll save the endless sea of what ifs for when the plan is in action and it actually happens. Until then it's just more speculation. Sure it could happen, and it also could happen that a micro tornado destroys the car at the curb denying the service animal that ride. I mean seriously I can go on all day about what ifs.

We can leave the what ifs to if they actually happen, and when they actually happen.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> I'm not going to engage in every possible what if scenario someone can dream up. That's a pointless waste of time. Once the toggle has been set and confirmed via email it's a done deal. The driver isn't going to get a ping for animals. I'll save the endless sea of what ifs for when the plan is in action and it actually happens. Until then it's just more speculation. Sure it could happen, and it also could happen that a micro tornado destroys the car at the curb denying the service animal that ride. I mean seriously I can go on all day about what ifs.
> 
> We can leave the what ifs to if they actually happen.


It won't ever happen, and for once, it's not because of Uber being unwilling. It's federal law. I tell you what tho, you go ahead and pitch it to them, I'm so sure that it won't ever happen that I'll even wish you luck with it.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> It won't ever happen, and for once, it's not because of Uber being unwilling. It's federal law. I tell you what tho, you go ahead and pitch it to them, I'm so sure that it won't ever happen that I'll even wish you luck with it.


I'm aware that you keep asserting that the plan falls afoul of the law and I keep asserting that it doesn't, that it doesn't come into conflict with the actual law, and you assert that case law rules but have yet to offer the case law in question, and even if you did the one you spoke of isn't a good comparrison between what the hotels were doing and what the proposed plan would do, and that the courts would have to decide that one way or another, and that it would probably never get to the courts because service animals would get rides every time without issue, and that the incidence of fraud would most assuredly go down, and that...I mean it just goes on and on.

I've already stated this is a dead issue because uber would never move in the right direction here, to improve the situation for service animal pax. So it's a moot point given it's a non-starter and the courts won't ever get a chance to decide, not that they were likely to even if the plan went into effect given that every service animal gets a ride without issue.

And on and on we go where it stops nobody knows.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Here's a little light reading for you...



Wonkytonk said:


> I'm aware that you keep asserting that the plan falls afoul of the law and I keep asserting that it doesn't, that it doesn't come into conflict with the actual law, and you assert that case law rules but have yet to offer the case law in question, and even if you did the one you spoke of isn't a good comparrison between what the hotels were doing and what the proposed plan would do, and that the courts would have to decide that one way or another, and that it would probably never get to the courts because service animals would get rides every time without issue, and that the incidence of fraud would most assuredly go down, and that...I mean it just goes on and on.
> 
> I've already stated this is a dead issue because uber would never move in the right direction here, to improve the situation for service animal pax. So it's a moot point given it's a non-starter and the courts won't ever get a chance to decide, not that they were likely to even if the plan went into effect given that every service animal gets a ride without issue.
> 
> And on and on we go where it stops nobody knows.


You're the one who keeps saying your done, yet keeps trying to defend an illegal system. If you're done.. be done.. It's the nature of my job (and my life if we're honest) to continually defend against those who would perpetuate discrimination.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> I'm not going to engage in every possible what if scenario someone can dream up. That's a pointless waste of time. Once the toggle has been set and confirmed via email it's a done deal. The driver isn't going to get a ping for animals. I'll save the endless sea of what ifs for when the plan is in action and it actually happens. Until then it's just more speculation. Sure it could happen, and it also could happen that a micro tornado destroys the car at the curb denying the service animal that ride. I mean seriously I can go on all day about what ifs.
> 
> We can leave the what ifs to if they actually happen, and when they actually happen.


I just thought of a way that your plans could work... Kind of.

Uber could allow and opt out of transporting animals, if they chose to, but in the spot where they would allow the driver to do that, they would have to also post, and also put into the algorithm that filtered out pets, that service animals were not included in that filter.

You would also be relying on the idea that the packs would all tell you if they are bringing their pets. Technically, Uber tells them that if they have pets with them, they should text or call the bus driver to let them know ahead of time, and understand that the driver may not want pets in the vehicle. This does not include service animals. There is no suggestion even for people with service animals to do the same.

They would have to be asking the packs if they had any pets with them for each and every single ride, because almost nobody travels with a pets all the time. Only disabled people with service animals do, and you can't ask them. This is one of those cases where words matter. "Pet" vs. "Service animal".

It sounds like a technicality, but it makes all the difference. Kind of the same way a checking account with "Person A *and* Person B" versus "Person A *or* Person B" can make a huge difference when you're trying to either right or cash a check on the account.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> I just thought of a way that your plans could work... Kind of.
> 
> Uber could allow and opt out of transporting animals, if they chose to, but in the spot where they would allow the driver to do that, they would have to also post, and also put into the algorithm that filtered out pets, that service animals were not included in that filter.
> 
> ...


This part of his plan could (I'd even go as far to say "likely would") work. Pets ("pet owners" technically) are not a protected class. There is no reason why they couldn't do a "pet flag" that both pax and drivers could turn on/off. In fact, they have UberPet testing in Singapore already (and presumably will be doing this in the US eventually). From what I understand they actually pay a bit of a bonus (which is ultimately charged to the pax) for those willing to take pets. There is no problem with that at all (would be perfectly legal). As you correctly pointed out Suze, the problem arises once it's a service dog instead of a pet involved.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> I just thought of a way that your plans could work... Kind of.
> 
> Uber could allow and opt out of transporting animals, if they chose to, but in the spot where they would allow the driver to do that, they would have to also post, and also put into the algorithm that filtered out pets, that service animals were not included in that filter.


Drivers aren't opting out of taking service animals they're simply stating their preference for no animals. They're not stating, asserting, or insisting that they won't take a service animal, they're simply indicating a preference for no animals. Uber honoring that preference would ping a driver without that preference toggled. There is no refusal of service to a service animal anywhere in there.

No muss, no fuss, eazy, peasy. Service animal pax gets a ride without knowing anything about what went on in the background of how they received their ride, they get no hassle at the curb so they're happy, happy, happy. No complaints of discrimination filed YAY team Uber-On!


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Uber honoring that preference would ping a driver without that preference toggled.


This is the core failure, the part you aren't getting. If they honor that preference (or any preference) made against a protected class, they would be violating federal law. It's not just service dogs at this point. It's any preference made about a protected class. Why you refuse to accept this, I really don't understand. Again, if you don't want to take my word for it, go find another attorney and ask them. "I'd rather not take black people." "I'd rather not take Muslims." "I'd rather not take the disabled with a medical device (any medical device.. people have griped about collapsible wheelchairs too)." Granting any of that (even acknowledging taking any of that into consideration) would be a federal civil rights violation. There is no way they'll ever do that (it's an instant lawsuit).


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> You're the one who keeps saying your done, yet keeps trying to defend an illegal system./QUOTE]
> 
> I try my hardest to stay away from personalizing a debate like you just did.
> 
> Life happens.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

That's the legality of it. Now, for the practicality of it. If I don't tell uber I have a service animal, how will they know? They'll just send you a "no animal" ping, you'll pick me and my service dog up. At least one driver will say something like "I'm not supposed to have to take animals" to someone like me who will be like "oh really? tell me more about that?"


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> This is the core failure, the part you aren't getting. If they honor that preference (or any preference) made against a protected class,


A driver selecting a no animals preferred toggle is not refusing service to a service animal by stating a preference for no animals which does not, in any way, assert, affirm, or insist that they will refuse a service animal. They're simply stating a preference for no animals in their car. Since Uber honors the request for no animals and routes the request to a willing driver no refusal has, or will ever occur.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Ok, so how is that different from what Suze said? Those with service animals won't check on the flag, those with pets will (hopefully), those drivers who don't want to take pets will check off the flag, and those who want to will check it on, yeah? So then, those with service animals will order a ride, it will go to everyone (since the flag isn't ticked on), a driver who left theirs ticked off will get me and my service dog and be.. well.. ticked off (yeah, I couldn't help but include the pun). How is that different from now (other than for pets)?


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> That's the legality of it.


Yes, you keep asserting that and I keep asserting that's up for debate, and with all probability is legal, and nothing posted so far on this forum precludes this plan from going into action.



Pawtism said:


> Now, for the practicality of it. If I don't tell uber I have a service animal, how will they know?


Again another what if. We can come up with a million and a half and ton to spare of what ifs. Ya got a big ole button that says service animal request, followed by a warning about requesting service animal service for a non-service animal.

It will be used.

If a few don't so what the driver takes the animal, after all they never stated they would refuse the service animal did they, and in aggregate it wouldn't be an issue for the overwhelming majority of the drivers who opted out. Then that service animal pax has to deal with an annoyed driver who didn't want an animal in his vehicle. No bueno bro. No bueno.



Pawtism said:


> Ok, so how is that different from what Suze said? Those with service animals won't check on the flag, those with pets will (hopefully), those drivers who don't want to take pets will check off the flag, and those who want to will check it on, yeah? So then, those with service animals will order a ride, it will go to everyone (since the flag isn't ticked on), a driver who left theirs ticked off will get me and my service dog and be.. well.. ticked off (yeah, I couldn't help but include the pun). How is that different from now (other than for pets)?


Yeah that's pretty convoluted.

The driver selects the no animals preferred toggle, the other drivers leave it alone, no action required, the driver who toggled no animals preferred gets an email confirmation.

The rest of it I believe I covered in my previous post.

This isn't complicated, it's actually pretty simple. And I'm sort of glad you mentioned ticked off driver because I mentioned them in the previous post which is why service animal pax should use the service animal ride option in uber if it were ever enacted.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Yes, you keep asserting that and I keep asserting that's up for debate, and with all probability is legal, and nothing posted so far on this forum precludes this plan from going into action.
> 
> Again another what if. We can come up with a million and a half and ton to spare of what ifs. Ya got a big ole button that says service animal request, followed by a warning about requesting service animal service for a non-service animal.
> 
> ...


That's exactly why it would never be enacted. Just when you start to get me on board with you, you lose me again with stuff like that. This is exactly why the settlement with Uber left it at "all drivers will be required". It's what matches federal law, and they couldn't modify it without violating their agreement (not to even mention federal law). Here's a little light reading for you... I honestly tried to save you the time by summarizing, but clearly you refuse to believe me, so you can read it for yourself. https://nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/pdf/uber-and-lyft/uber-settlement.pdf


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Those with service animals won't check on the flag,


By this I intuit, and you can correct me if I'm wrong by all means, that you mean that service animal pax would chose not to request a service animal ride using the service animal ride request option that would be incorporated into the app. I believe we discussed this before, you are but one individual, and you won't use it. Ok that's fine so you dont't use it. Most will, if simply because they avoid the hassle of a ticked off driver hassling them at the curb.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> By this I intuit, and you can correct me if I'm wrong by all means, that you mean that service animal pax would chose not to request a service animal ride using the service animal ride request option that would be incorporated into the app. I believe we discussed this before, you are but one individual, and you won't use it. Ok that's fine so you dont't use it. Most will, if simply because they avoid the hassle of a ticked off driver hassling them at the curb.


You clearly don't know the service dog community very well. Most will not use it, and frankly most don't really care what people think about it because they know they have the protection of the ADA. We'd certainly rather avoid a hassle, but not at expense of our rights.

You have to understand we have a constant battle on our hands, and have to constantly educate those who are ignorant about the law, everywhere we go. In a restaurant there is always some ignorant fool who doesn't understand that you don't have to be blind to use a service dog, at the library, some ignorant fool (usually a parent) hassles us, everywhere we go. We've had to become very protective of our rights. I get cases each week where someone has been discriminated against at work, at a club, at the gym, you name it.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> That's exactly why it would never be enacted. Just when you start to get me on board with you, you lose me again with stuff like that. This is exactly why the settlement with Uber left it at "all drivers will be required".


"During the Agreement Term , Uber will send quarterly email reminders to all Drivers with active accounts reminding Drivers oftheir obligation to accept Riders with Service Animals."

That's applicable only during the agreement term and it applies only to Uber's requirement to remind drivers of their obligation to accept service animals that present to them one would presume since otherwise there's no impact worth considering.

"If this is the second plausible complaint after [date by which all drivers must accept service animal policy through Uber app] that the driver-partner has refused to take a rider with a service animal, letthe driver-partner know that Uber has permanently deactivated their account."

Neither of these applies because no driver under the terms of the plan would be refusing a service animal because none would be receiving service animal pings and on the off chance they do get one they take the ride. No problem. The majority of drivers who toggled that preference would probably never see a service animal present itself for a ride in their entire uber-on career. And service animal pax get a hassle free happy making ride.

Why do dislike happiness so much Pawtism, why? ;0)~


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Luckily, at least half of my cases are able to be resolved with a little education, a simple apology and usually a comped meal or free month or something (otherwise I'd never have time to post here). However, not all of them are so simple and some of them are intentionally being discriminatory (not that they quite see it that way). That's my issue with your plan, it's intentionally discriminatory, but under the guise of being helpful somehow. The worst part, is despite my honest efforts, you can't quite see how you are being discriminatory.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> You clearly don't know the service dog community very well. Most will not use it, and frankly most don't really care what people think about it because they know they have the protection of the ADA. We'd certainly rather avoid a hassle, but not at expense of our rights.


Just another item we'll disagree on then. The list seems to be mounting.

I think most would, and further most would like that the incidence of fraudulent service animal ride requests would go down drastically.



Pawtism said:


> Luckily, at least half of my cases are able to be resolved with a little education, a simple apology and usually a comped meal or free month or something (otherwise I'd never have time to post here). However, not all of them are so simple and some of them are intentionally being discriminatory (not that they quite see it that way). That's my issue with your plan, it's intentionally discriminatory, but under the guise of being helpful somehow. The worst part, is despite my honest efforts, you can't quite see how you are being discriminatory.


Have you stopped to consider I'm not seeing it because it's not there. The service animal pax gets a ride from a driver perfectly happy to take that ride with the additional income uber's gonna give them for it. The service animal pax gets a ride no hassle.

There is no discrimination against either the service animal or the service animal pax here.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

It's not about happiness. It's about our right to be picked up just like any other pax. Look, be honest a second. Would you be having this debate if the pax had a crutch instead of a service dog? Glasses? a small O2 tank? No, it's because of the service dog. THAT is what makes it discriminatory, you are singling out someone because of the specific medical device they have to use.



Wonkytonk said:


> Just another item we'll disagree on then. The list seems to be mounting.
> 
> I think most would, and further most would like that the incidence of fraudulent service animal ride requests would go down drastically.


Actually, that plan, even if it were legal, would increase the fakes (or at least the people hitting the button claiming a service animal), because then they'd be getting a driver they knew was ok with animals (pets) instead of taking a chance.

You think that it's not there because the pax is getting a ride. However, I've pointed out several situations where the pax would not be getting a ride, and in most other situations (outside of an ant heavy urban area) where they'd have to wait a lot longer than needed. For no other reason than they happened to be disabled, thus, discrimination. Why you can't see that is much more likely to do with the fact that you've never been disabled, or had to care for someone who is, and thus it doesn't enter your thoughts.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> That's the legality of it. Now, for the practicality of it. If I don't tell uber I have a service animal, how will they know? They'll just send you a "no animal" ping, you'll pick me and my service dog up. At least one driver will say something like "I'm not supposed to have to take animals" to someone like me who will be like "oh really? tell me more about that?"


Not to mention the possibility of a disgruntled driver or GLH rep spilling the beans to the media...

Oh, wait! My mistake! No driver or GLH rep would EVER be disgruntled, right? 

There's no such thing as a secret.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Furthermore, let's take it to it's natural conclusion. If all these small business can pick and choose if they want to take a service dog or not, why not stores? restaurants? After all, if the first 2 restaurants don't want to take me, eventually I'll get fed, that's all that matters right?


----------



## AMP (Apr 4, 2018)

I'm tired and lazy today. Sorry for posting before reading rest of comments past page 1.

Talk to your Dr and Vet. They might have some suggestions.

The federal government in process of setting up official rules and regulations for service animals.

My suggestion is to get a respirator mask. Then when the passenger and dog get in, you immediately put it on. Then you tell them that you are highly allergic to dogs. Tell them that you have been known to pass out and have convulsions.

Guess what. The passenger says they will cancel ride and request another.

You drive off smiling into the sunset.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

AMP said:


> I'm tired and lazy today. Sorry for posting before reading rest of comments past page 1.
> 
> Talk to your Dr and Vet. They might have some suggestions.
> 
> ...


You know.. THAT might work.  You're not refusing the dog, and if the pax is comfortable with that, so be it. However, they very well may say "err.. we'll get the next one, thanks". 



AMP said:


> I'm tired and lazy today. Sorry for posting before reading rest of comments past page 1.
> 
> Talk to your Dr and Vet. They might have some suggestions.
> 
> ...


That reminds me of a time when I was getting a car fixed under warranty repair, I had to get a shuttle ride to the dealer. Shuttle driver shows up, and we go to get in. Driver sees my dog and turns just white. I figure he's just one of those ones that are afraid at first and once they see how well she behaves they always loosen up after a couple of minutes. Turns out he was very allergic, but thankfully only through direct contact (we got to talking quite a bit and I really do believe him). So he mentions it, just saying something like "please make sure she doesn't contact me, I'm quite allergic". At first, yeah, I'll admit I thought he was probably just trying to avoid taking the dog. However, something about the way he said it struck me, so I asked something like "Oh, do I need to keep her a certain distance away?" just to kind of feel him out. He was like no, as long as she doesn't touch me we'll be fine. And somehow, maybe his tone, I'm not sure, but somehow I knew he was serious and telling the truth. So I just offered to get another ride.

Now, if he just wanted away from the dog, that was his chance. Instead, he said no, we're good as long as she does come in contact with me. I put her in a down-stay, so I knew she wouldn't touch him. And we went on our way, just chatting about it. I told him about my disabilities, he told me about his (which is a contact only one), but apparently he gets right to the edge of anaphylaxis (but had his Epi-pen with him). He did politely reject shaking my hand at the end (as I likely had dog hair on me), which made perfect sense. Apparently it's come up before so he knew he'd be good as long as they didn't contact.

I'm not sure why I'm telling everyone this, AMPs post made me think about it, and I suppose it's a good example of someone who has allergies severe enough to probably meet the definition of disability still making it work (which, frankly, I was proud of the guy).



reg barclay said:


> T'm getting the impression the problem is something like this: There are some who will lie and say their pet is a service dog, when it isn't. There are some who will lie and say they have dog allergies, when they don't. So either those with genuine service dogs or those with genuine allergies have to lose out, and the law has decided in favor of the first group. Couldn't requiring both groups to have a medical certificate solve this?


Well, the ADA specifically states that no documentation is required for service dogs (although this is a point I'm, at least in part, against them on). I'd like to see a system where they would be required to prove a disability (not what it is, just something from their doc that they do have one), and that the dog has passed a public access test (although, my personal whims are no more important than anyone else, and the system I'd like to see is also, currently illegal). In some countries (Canada and the UK come to mind) they can get a medical certificate about allergies (if they are bad enough). Here, unfortunately people played the fake allergies card so much at the beginning of the service dog era, that they wrote the ADA to straight up ignore allergies. Maybe one day they'll revisit that, but based on what I've seen on this site alone, I'd imagine it would get abused again, so probably not.

That's another one that, in theory, would work out, but as for the legalities of it, it can't (even my plan, would be illegal).

The only real mention of allergies in the ADA service dog section (other than stating it's not a valid reason to deny a service dog) is that if two people one with a service dog, and one with allergies have to spend time in the same room together, they should be separated as much as possible. For example, let's say on a plane, they typically put the service dogs in the bulkhead seating in the front, so someone with allergies would be put in the very back of the plane (if at all possible).

Another example would be at a restaurant, if someone claims allergies to my service dog, typically they'll move the person who just got there. So if I've been eating and someone comes in to sit next to me and claims allergies to my dog that person would move. If I were just going in and was about to sit next to someone and they claimed allergies, they'd try to get me to move somewhere else. Their hands are a bit tied by the fact that they can't legally segregate us either, so they'd probably just try asking nicely (and I'd almost certainly agree to it, unless it was clear that it was someone just being a jerk or something). They try to get the person who isn't established yet to move first though, typically. Now, sometimes that can present an issue too. For example lets say there are only 3 handicap accessible booths, 2 of them are full so only one is available, and I'm in a power chair (I'm not), so I actually NEED that seat. In a situation like that, they'd have little choice but to advise the person with allergies to move.

It could get even more convoluted, let's say both I and the allergic person need handicap booths and they are in one and I'm going to sit in the only one still open, which happens to be next to it. Well, it becomes a matter of "tough" at that point. Sad but true, thankfully situations like that are pretty rare though. I've not personally had anything like that happen. The worst I've personally had happen is they were about to sit me at a table and evidently saw me coming a woman (from a table eatting) came up to me and very politely told me her husband was very allergic and would I mind going at least one table over.. I had them put me three tables away (to be safe) as I believed her and she was very nice about it.


----------



## reg barclay (Nov 3, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> Well, the ADA specifically states that no documentation is required for service dogs (although this is a point I'm, at least in part, against them on). I'd like to see a system where they would be required to prove a disability (not what it is, just something from their doc that they do have one), and that the dog has passed a public access test (although, my personal whims are no more important than anyone else, and the system I'd like to see is also, currently illegal). In some countries (Canada and the UK come to mind) they can get a medical certificate about allergies (if they are bad enough). Here, unfortunately people played the fake allergies card so much at the beginning of the service dog era, that they wrote the ADA to straight up ignore allergies. Maybe one day they'll revisit that, but based on what I've seen on this site alone, I'd imagine it would get abused again, so probably not.
> 
> That's another one that, in theory, would work out, but as for the legalities of it, it can't (even my plan, would be illegal).


Honestly, I don't really mind if there's no burden of proof on the person with the service dog, but it seems so contrary to common sense to me, that someone with a documented allergy should be forced to transport them. Maybe I'm wrong, but if those with a medical certificate of allergies could be exempted from transporting service dogs, I doubt many people would go out of their way to get fake medical exemptions just to avoid having dogs in their car.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

reg barclay said:


> Honestly, I don't really mind if there's no burden of proof on the person with the service dog, but it seems so contrary to common sense to me, that someone with a documented allergy should be forced to transport them. Maybe I'm wrong, but if those with a medical certificate of allergies could be exempted from transporting service dogs, I doubt many people would go out of their way to get fake medical exemptions just to avoid having dogs in their car.


There have been some that are allegedly fake in the UK. I mean I guess it's hard to say if they actually are. Clearly some have done it, but it's doesn't seem to be a very large number. I think the difference between the countries is the view on it. Here if your allergies are severe enough (like my shuttle van driver could have probably qualified), you could be considered disabled in your own right. The problem (at least for Uber drivers) becomes our IC status. That shuttle driver, if he wished, could ask for an ADA accommodation (based on the animal allergy and service dogs) and be reassigned to take calls for the service department or something. He's an employee, we aren't. Very few people actually have allergies severe enough (actual anaphylaxis) to rise to that level. To many of us whined about sneezing and itchy eyes (when they should have just taken an Allegra), and ruined it for the few that are actually that bad. I do agree it's unfortunate.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Ok, so how is that different from what Suze said? Those with service animals won't check on the flag,


There is no flag to check there would be a service animal icon, logo, or link to click for a service animal ride request.

It is at best premature to state out of hand that service animal pax as a group would not choose the service animal request link, logo, or icon when requesting a ride.

I believe that on balance most will, and if some don't, as in for example you, well they're handled as I've described in an earlier post.

Why a service animal pax would want to request a normal x ride is beyond me given as you stated earlier they would most likely be faced with an annoyed, or ticked off driver, much like they frequently are now.

By selecting the service animal ride request their overall experience would tend to be much better, with happier, richer drivers to boot. Win-Win. Uber-ServiceAnimal-on.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> Well, I guess they could shoot for an autonomous emergency backup driver position. I mean it's not like their current drivers, well at least one for sure, did any better than a blind driver could.
> 
> What, too soon?
> 
> This issue has me shaking my head at Uber for how stupid it is, not because they're enforcing the service dog law, far from it, I think it's necessary, no, what gets me about uber is that they could do away with driver angst over this issue by simply giving drivers the option to opt out of transporting service animals, and then pay a high surge rate for transporting them, and offer the rides to drivers who haven't opted out. It's not like there's a lot of service animal ride requests on any given day. Uber has more than enough money to do this, and they should.


So your solution is screw the handicapped with a high surge charge. They need these animals for a reason. Where is your compassion folks.


----------



## reg barclay (Nov 3, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> There have been some that are allegedly fake in the UK. I mean I guess it's hard to say if they actually are. Clearly some have done it, but it's doesn't seem to be a very large number. I think the difference between the countries is the view on it. Here if your allergies are severe enough (like my shuttle van driver could have probably qualified), you could be considered disabled in your own right. The problem (at least for Uber drivers) becomes our IC status. That shuttle driver, if he wished, could ask for an ADA accommodation (based on the animal allergy and service dogs) and be reassigned to take calls for the service department or something. He's an employee, we aren't. Very few people actually have allergies severe enough (actual anaphylaxis) to rise to that level. To many of us whined about sneezing and itchy eyes (when they should have just taken an Allegra), and ruined it for the few that are actually that bad. I do agree it's unfortunate.


Would I be correct in assuming that a person with serious allergies would even have a problem transporting people who've been in close proximity to dogs, without any dog present, meaning that such a job would be difficult for them in any case?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> If the service animal receives a ride no crime has been committed.
> 
> If a driver states a preference for no animals without respect to service animals, and uber accepts that preference, and shoots that service animal request ping to a driver without that stated preference the service animal receives a ride, the driver with the preference refused no ride, refused no service animal, and therefore no crime has been committed by that driver, or by uber since it's met it's responsibility to forward the ride request which was subsequently fulfilled.
> 
> ...


Except that riders will have to wait longer for a ride and are thus being discriminated agains.



reg barclay said:


> Would I be correct in assuming that a person with serious allergies would even have a problem transporting people who've been in close proximity to dogs, without any dog present, meaning that such a job would be difficult for them in any case?


Yes. The fact is 90% of people claiming allergies are lying



Pawtism said:


> There have been some that are allegedly fake in the UK. I mean I guess it's hard to say if they actually are. Clearly some have done it, but it's doesn't seem to be a very large number. I think the difference between the countries is the view on it. Here if your allergies are severe enough (like my shuttle van driver could have probably qualified), you could be considered disabled in your own right. The problem (at least for Uber drivers) becomes our IC status. That shuttle driver, if he wished, could ask for an ADA accommodation (based on the animal allergy and service dogs) and be reassigned to take calls for the service department or something. He's an employee, we aren't. Very few people actually have allergies severe enough (actual anaphylaxis) to rise to that level. To many of us whined about sneezing and itchy eyes (when they should have just taken an Allegra), and ruined it for the few that are actually that bad. I do agree it's unfortunate.


Allergies are not a disability in the US


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

People with serious allergies would even have problems with perfume. 
All jobs are not for all people. 

I am always amazed at the people that do not read the agreement.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> You know.. THAT might work.  You're not refusing the dog, and if the pax is comfortable with that, so be it. However, they very well may say "err.. we'll get the next one, thanks".
> 
> That reminds me of a time when I was getting a car fixed under warranty repair, I had to get a shuttle ride to the dealer. Shuttle driver shows up, and we go to get in. Driver sees my dog and turns just white. I figure he's just one of those ones that are afraid at first and once they see how well she behaves they always loosen up after a couple of minutes. Turns out he was very allergic, but thankfully only through direct contact (we got to talking quite a bit and I really do believe him). So he mentions it, just saying something like "please make sure she doesn't contact me, I'm quite allergic". At first, yeah, I'll admit I thought he was probably just trying to avoid taking the dog. However, something about the way he said it struck me, so I asked something like "Oh, do I need to keep her a certain distance away?" just to kind of feel him out. He was like no, as long as she doesn't touch me we'll be fine. And somehow, maybe his tone, I'm not sure, but somehow I knew he was serious and telling the truth. So I just offered to get another ride.
> 
> ...


The solution is surprisingly simple: If you claim to be allergic, you may not drive rideshare.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Rat said:


> Except that riders will have to wait longer for a ride and are thus being discriminated agains.


At best that's a premature statement. There's no current evidence on which to base that speculation. In some cases they would most likely even get transportation faster under some of the protections in the plan.



RockinEZ said:


> So your solution is screw the handicapped with a high surge charge. They need these animals for a reason. Where is your compassion folks.


Nope. Uber eats the additional cost under the plan. Practically speaking it would cost uber pennies considering the incidence of bonafide service animal rides it would have to cover.

But yeah the cost is no different than a normal x ride.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

Dogs are rare. I get more little old ladies with a poodle than I get service dogs.
I let the little old ladies hold their dog in their lap They want to anyway.
I have a dog blanket in the trunk I have used twice.
I happen to like dogs and keep a 3M lint roller in the car just in case. (gotta get the 3M brand. Dollar store lint rollers are worthless)


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> You know.. THAT might work.  You're not refusing the dog, and if the pax is comfortable with that, so be it.


See you do get it. Driver doesn't refuse the dog no harm no foul. The pax would be comfortable with the plan because he gets a ride not having clue one about what went on in the back ground to get him his/her ride.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> There is no flag to check there would be a service animal icon, logo, or link to click for a service animal ride request.
> 
> It is at best premature to state out of hand that service animal pax as a group would not choose the service animal request link, logo, or icon when requesting a ride.
> 
> ...


An attorney would see it on the app and find a disabled person to become their client for the lawsuit.

I hate that this happens, but it does, and they win.



Rat said:


> Except that riders will have to wait longer for a ride and are thus being discriminated agains.
> 
> Yes. The fact is 90% of people claiming allergies are lying
> 
> Allergies are not a disability in the US


Yes, allergies are considered a disability in the US, and reasonable accommodations, in accordance with the severity of them, must be made where possible.

This is why some schools have prohibited peanut butter being brought in by students... someone has a severe allergy. They may have to revamp the entire hot lunch menu, too.

It just doesn't supercede the need for a service dog. In fact, there are service dogs FOR allergies, too. They alert their handler of the allergen's presence so it can be avoided.



Wonkytonk said:


> At best that's a premature statement. There's no current evidence on which to base that speculation. In some cases they would most likely even get transportation faster under some of the protections in the plan.
> 
> Nope. Uber eats the additional cost under the plan. Practically speaking it would cost uber pennies considering the incidence of bonafide service animal rides it would have to cover.
> 
> But yeah the cost is no different than a normal x ride.


The thing is, as an IC, it's against the law for the driver to "charge" Uber more for transporting the SA...


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> An attorney would see it on the app and find a disabled person to become their client for the lawsuit.


You think? I seriously doubt it. I mean on the universal scale of possibilities it's not outrageously high or anything, and I suppose it falls within the realm of possibility, but I think it wouldn't occur to them. They would just look at the app and see an option for service animals and that would pretty much end it. Not saying it can't happen just that that's probably not very likely.

But hey even if they do I've got my money on uber actually winning this one since no one anywhere is refusing service animal rides.

I know, I know I would be rooting for uber on this one. I feel kinda dirty about it, but all those happy service animal pax would take that away pretty quickly, so there is that. 




SuzeCB said:


> The thing is, as an IC, it's against the law for the driver to "charge" Uber more for transporting the SA...


Whose charging more they're getting an attaboy bonus for successfully transporting a service animal pax or however else you want to structure it, and there's bound to be a transported a happy service animal bade in there somewhere as well. Really though I don't see how it runs afoul given it's really just bonus for not having the no animals preferred toggle on.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> You think? I seriously doubt it. I mean on the universal scale of possibilities it's not outrageously high or anything, and I suppose it falls within the realm of possibility, but I think it wouldn't occur to them. They would just look at the app and see an option for service animals and that would pretty much end it. Not saying it can't happen just that that's probably not very likely.
> 
> But hey even if they do I've got my money on uber actually winning this one since no one anywhere is refusing service animal rides.
> 
> I know, I know I would be rooting for uber on this one. I feel kinda dirty about it, but all those happy service animal pax would take that away pretty quickly, so there is that.


There are attorneys that do ONLY this. They roam around parking lots measuring the lined out areas next to handicapped parking spots, use public restrooms just to see if they're in compliance, etc.

The law is nearly 30 years old, and people STILL don't comply. There really is no excuse for it.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> The law is nearly 30 years old, and people STILL don't comply. There really is no excuse for it.


As for the lawyers I guess there's a reason that profession is so despised.

And I totally get there's a need for the law. There needs to be a harder crack down on entitled ******bags that present their pets requesting services reserved for service animals. That infuriates me for people who need service animals to make their lives livable.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

reg barclay said:


> Would I be correct in assuming that a person with serious allergies would even have a problem transporting people who've been in close proximity to dogs, without any dog present, meaning that such a job would be difficult for them in any case?


Yeah, most people with allergies so severe as to cause anaphylaxis (and qualify as a disability) would be severe enough that even a normal pax, who had dog/cat hair on their shirt from their own pet, would be enough to set them off. That shuttle driver was an odd exception to the rule. Cat allergies are far more common than dog as well.



Wonkytonk said:


> There is no flag to check there would be a service animal icon, logo, or link to click for a service animal ride request.


This is the part that would be illegal. On top of that, most service dog handlers wouldn't use it anyway, rendering the system worthless.



Rat said:


> Except that riders will have to wait longer for a ride and are thus being discriminated agains.
> 
> Yes. The fact is 90% of people claiming allergies are lying
> 
> Allergies are not a disability in the US


There are some cases where it rises to the level of disability, but they are fairly rare (and I'm only aware of like 3 cases for dog allergies, that one is ultra rare). Latex allergies are more common, and some can qualify as disability. For example, I know a nurse who wound up on disability because of it (and now has a service dog to warn her if latex is around).



Rat said:


> The solution is surprisingly simple: If you claim to be allergic, you may not drive rideshare.


Agreed, it honestly is that simple. If you're allergic enough for it to be an issue (that you can't solve with an Allegra), then you're too allergic to do ride share.



Wonkytonk said:


> See you do get it. Driver doesn't refuse the dog no harm no foul. The pax would be comfortable with the plan because he gets a ride not having clue one about what went on in the back ground to get him his/her ride.


I was referring to the put on a respirator mask and casually mention that sometimes it makes you cough enough to pass out plan. I can't honestly say I endorse it, but it might work and isn't overtly illegal. As for your plan, there isn't a "what they don't know can't hurt them" principle in the law.. in fact, it's kinda the opposite.



SuzeCB said:


> There are attorneys that do ONLY this. They roam around parking lots measuring the lined out areas next to handicapped parking spots, use public restrooms just to see if they're in compliance, etc.
> 
> The law is nearly 30 years old, and people STILL don't comply. There really is no excuse for it.





Wonkytonk said:


> You think? I seriously doubt it. I mean on the universal scale of possibilities it's not outrageously high or anything, and I suppose it falls within the realm of possibility, but I think it wouldn't occur to them. They would just look at the app and see an option for service animals and that would pretty much end it. Not saying it can't happen just that that's probably not very likely.
> 
> But hey even if they do I've got my money on uber actually winning this one since no one anywhere is refusing service animal rides.
> 
> ...


There are definitely attorneys that do this, and it is despicable. They are the attorneys that even other attorneys hate. They don't target just service dogs either. They'll go into a business (many times the disabled client has never even actually set foot/wheel inside the business) and find that the bar they are required to have next to the toilet is 6 inches too high/low, and sue based on that. It's a horrible practice, but they do it.






I want to make it clear that my advocacy firm refuses to have any part in any of that, and that is not what we are about at all. In fact, they have blatantly turned down cash offers to settle (without fixing the issue). We insist that the core issue is fixed (even if they agree to fix it without acknowledging that it was a violation to begin with). If our client is out any time, we insist they are compensated (fairly) for that time (or a fair severance if they were fired as a result) as well. All that being said, even I'd take on the case if there was a service dog "button" that disabled people were being made to use. It's would be just such a blatantly illegal case, I'd be a fool not to take it on (it's a slam dunk).



Wonkytonk said:


> And I totally get there's a need for the law. There needs to be a harder crack down on entitled ******bags that present their pets requesting services reserved for service animals. That infuriates me for people who need service animals to make their lives livable.


Now THIS I can agree with you 100% on! In fact, you even get a like from me on it (I'd give you 10 if it were in my power).  Real service dog owners hate the fakes as much, if not more, than "normal" (like Suze, I'm not a fan of that word either) people do. Not only are they presenting their untrained pet dogs as highly trained service dogs (which damages the reputation of real service dogs) their "pets" are actually threats to our highly trained service dogs. They are impersonating a disabled person themselves. This is as despicable as getting in a wheel chair and rolling around telling people you're paralyzed. More than a few service dogs have been attacked and wouldn't work again after that (they had to be retired), which leave the disabled handler that relies on them stuck at home until (and if) they can get a replacement (which often takes a year or two). I definitely agree with you that the people who do this are entitled ******bags.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Now THIS I can agree with you 100% on!


Progress is a beautiful thing really.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Progress is a beautiful thing really.


Like I said, I do think you mean well, it's just the method that I object to, not the end goal. I'm not sure if you've seen it in all of that, but I laid out my plan for how to avoid the fakes (unfortunately, my plan is illegal too, currently, but maybe one day).


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Like I said, I do think you mean well, it's just the method that I object to,


Nope, no backsliding allowed.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Nope, no backsliding allowed.


Ok, fair enough, we'll just leave it at the people who fake service dogs are entitled ******bags, and agree on that.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Yeah, most people with allergies so severe as to cause anaphylaxis (and qualify as a disability) would be severe enough that even a normal pax, who had dog/cat hair on their shirt from their own pet, would be enough to set them off. That shuttle driver was an odd exception to the rule. Cat allergies are far more common than dog as well.
> 
> This is the part that would be illegal. On top of that, most service dog handlers wouldn't use it anyway, rendering the system worthless.
> 
> ...


Yup.....videos like that make me think even less of attorneys (hard to believe that's possible) and ADA "advocacy groups"

Using peoples handicaps to punish people and businesses just because you can......very honorable

You yourself claim if there was a SA button you would take the case because it's a slam dunk......who cares that maybe it would create a better situation for EVERYONE

Let's not try something new because we have to hold to an archaic law that couldn't possibly account for things that would happen 30 years later......

So in your eyes it is better to put your animal into the vehicle of someone that clearly does not want it there.....the entire ride will be awkward and the driver will want you out as quickly as humanly possible....you would prefer that to having the technology place you with someone that likes animals and would be more then happy to have you with them

That's not even slightly logical

Your law that you cling to is actually impeding progress and your fine with that.....it impedes companies from streamlining business to account for personal preference and creating a safer and more pleasant experience for everyone

After enduring this thread and the self righteous nature of it.....of people thinking their rights far out weigh mine it's simple for me

I get a dig in my car......automatic 1 star from me. PAX was rude and I found urine on the floor.....this way I dont get paired ever again


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

RedSteel said:


> Yup.....videos like that make me think even less of attorneys (hard to believe that's possible) and ADA "advocacy groups"
> 
> Using peoples handicaps to punish people and businesses just because you can......very honorable
> 
> ...


I wouldn't suggest accusing the dogs of urinating in your car. That's a guaranteed way of being sued by the disabled pax if it didn't happen.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> I wouldn't suggest accusing the dogs of urinating in your car. That's a guaranteed way of being sued by the disabled pax if it didn't happen.


Seeing a very noticeable pattern with your responce

Everything is sue sue sue...it kind of shows my point that the law is abused because it can be

I would have dashcam and picture evidence to protect me..... what would the PAX have?

Their word?

And isn't it ludicrous that we have to go to these levels instead of just accepting times have changed and let's create a way to accommodate everyone


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> Yup.....videos like that make me think even less of attorneys (hard to believe that's possible) and ADA "advocacy groups"
> 
> Using peoples handicaps to punish people and businesses just because you can......very honorable
> 
> ...


I would take it because (if you bothered to read my previous posts) it would be discriminatory (the fact that it is a slam dunk is what would make me a fool not to take it, as I can both accomplish my stated mission of preventing discrimination, and get an easy W, I never said I'd milk them for a bunch of money, I'd just make them fix it). Discrimination is wrong, plain and simple. Again, I'm sorry you have issues with dogs, but that your personal problem. You're probably sorry I'm Asperger's, but that's my personal problem. Discrimination is a social problem, however (it effects us all). If you wouldn't object to my crutches, but do to my service dog then you are discriminating. I didn't choose to be Asperger's (I'm not saying I'd choose not to be either, but life didn't give me a choice one way or the other), I didn't choose to need a service dog. I tell you what, you find me another medical device that can detect the onset of sensory events prior to them happening, can take action to reduce and or eliminate them, and can guide me out during an event, and I'll likely trade in my service dog, deal? Then get to work finding epilepsy detectors, ways for the blind to see, etc., then maybe service dogs won't be needed. Until then, we need our service dogs, and we still need to get places the same as everyone else. If you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't have your car as a "public accommodation" (to spell it out "deal with it, or quit").



RedSteel said:


> Seeing a very noticeable pattern with your responce
> 
> Everything is sue sue sue...it kind of shows my point that the law is abused because it can be
> 
> ...


That is hilarious coming from you. You're the one who's all "I just don't like dogs so I'd like to see an entire class of people discriminated against just because of my personal views!"  Your dash cam wouldn't get a service dog peeing in the car, because they are specifically trained not to do that (again, your bias is showing). Plus, you'd be surprised how many service dog handlers are recording (find my post where I list all my gear).

The ADA was last modified in 2013, it's not like they aren't keeping up with it.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

RedSteel said:


> Seeing a very noticeable pattern with your responce
> 
> Everything is sue sue sue...it kind of shows my point that the law is abused because it can be
> 
> ...


You're talking about discriminating, exploiting, and committing fraud against the disabled. Do you understand that this is the single most litigious demographic in this country? They are also the single most successful in court demographic in the country. Go ahead, try it. See what happens.

When a service animal is accused of doing something that would be a violation of its socialization training, its ability to continue to be considered a service animal is called into question. You would be threatening a disabled person's ability to live day-to-day. This is definitely something that they would sue over. They may or may not Sue over somebody pulling up and refusing to take the dog, depending on the mood. There is a lot of time, effort, energy, sweat, and money poured into locating these dogs, training these dogs, and training the Handler and helping the Handler bond with the dog properly. And there are not enough dogs for the people that need them. As I've said in an earlier post, these dogs are very special in that they are actually disabled in their own right. They don't act as dogs should if they're going to be just dogs. They have absolutely no signs of dominance. They either don't have, or have severely suppress almost every canine Instinct that they have so that they can serve their Handler and do what they're trained to do.

And I don't know if this would be the case, or not, but I wonder if bringing a false, legally fraudulent, claim against a Handler based on the actions (that never actually happened) of their service animal would actually rise to the level of interfering with a service animal. Certainly the fraud would be a crime on its own, but there are specific laws about interfering with a service animal. I don't know if they would interlace with this situation or not, but I wouldn't want to Be on the sh** end of that stick. If you do, go right ahead. Do be sure to let us know how that shakes out for you.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Lol

I find hilarious how black and white you two find this subject...... almost to a fascist level

"Its MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY"

I'm the one that says "hey let's find a way to make it work for everyone" but you all obviously want the power trip and force your dog on people that dont want it.

And please stop the crutches/hearing aide nonsense...... you demean your argument with it

Crutches are not living breathing creatures......dogs are

And sorry if you didn't understand the dashcam comment but seeing as you are in the field I think I won't spell it out to you

This kind of argument with the two of you is why ADA Advocacy groups have such a horrible reputation. No grey area for you all.....just black and white and if people don't bend to you all .....
See you in court. Maybe a small step above an ambulance chaser


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> Lol
> 
> I find hilarious how black and white you two find this subject...... almost to a fascist level
> 
> ...


It's not us saying all this, it's the ADA. This has already been hashed out. There is no way to please everyone, there never has been and there never will be. Unfortunately there are discriminatory people, who aren't willing to accept facts. You're the one that has a problem with the fact that the service dogs are medical devices. Perhaps it's time to take a good long look in the mirror and realize that discrimination is not the way forward. You keep trying to argue that the ADA is an archaic law, yet it's been updated as recently as 2013. Every time they update it, they include more protections for disabled people. Why is that I wonder? Well, it's because there are people who like to keep discriminating.

I'm not the first (nor will I be the last) to make the comparison of service dogs to a wheelchair, crutches, hearing aid, etc. That's what they are classified as (go look it up, it's very easy to find). They are Durable Medical Equipment (they're even tax deductible). It's not like it's me saying this, I'm not even close to the first to point that out. Go google "are service dogs medical equipment" and you'll find a slew of links about it.

I'm sorry you have such a problem with it, but that does not excuse your discrimination anymore than the fact that a racist honestly believes that their race is superior is excused for their discrimination, or a sexist who honestly believes their gender is superior is excused. If a sexist said "We need to just get women to be ok with getting paid less, after all, they're getting paid. I just want to make everyone happy." Would you honestly be ok with that? I'm betting you wouldn't. Discrimination is discrimination and that's what you're endorsing (not against race or gender, but against disability). Your real problem seems to be more that you don't like the fact that you made your car a "public accommodation", hence, quit, then your problem is solved.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> It's not us saying all this, it's the ADA. This has already been hashed out. There is no way to please everyone, there never has been and there never will be. Unfortunately there are discriminatory people, who aren't willing to accept facts. You're the one that has a problem with the fact that the service dogs are medical devices. Perhaps it's time to take a good long look in the mirror and realize that discrimination is not the way forward. You keep trying to argue that the ADA is an archaic law, yet it's been updated as recently as 2013. Every time they update it, they include more protections for disabled people. Why is that I wonder? Well, it's because there are people who like to keep discriminating.
> 
> I'm not the first (nor will I be the last) to make the comparison of service dogs to a wheelchair, crutches, hearing aid, etc. That's what they are classified as (go look it up, it's very easy to find). They are Durable Medical Equipment (they're even tax deductible). It's not like it's me saying this, I'm not even close to the first to point that out. Go google "are service dogs medical equipment" and you'll find a slew of links about it.
> 
> I'm sorry you have such a problem with it, but that does not excuse your discrimination anymore than the fact that a racist honestly believes that their race is superior is excused for their discrimination, or a sexist who honestly believes their gender is superior is excused. If a sexist said "We need to just get women to be ok with getting paid less, after all, they're getting paid. I just want to make everyone happy." Would you honestly be ok with that? I'm betting you wouldn't. Discrimination is discrimination and that's what you're endorsing (not against race or gender, but against disability). Your real problem seems to be more that you don't like the fact that you made your car a "public accommodation", hence, quit, then your problem is solved.


Lmao......I can just tell your getting frustrated with the fact you cant bully me into submitting to your will

You are actually more attempting to portray or compare me to racists or misogynist. That's funny to me.

I am not discriminating at all to anyone with a disability.....I feel for them but what I WILL do is stand up for myself and believe I have as many rights as you do. This is the point you can't grasp even if I start saying it in any language you want.

I believe all ethnic backgrounds are equal

I believe women are equal to men and I tell my daughter this all the time

I believe crutches are made of either metal or wood

I believe hearing aides are made of plastic

I believe Dogs are dogs..... living breathing creatures and not comparable to inanimate objects in any way shape or form and to infer they are is moronic

I am sure you are used to using all of these tried and tested catch phrases with outstanding results in bullying people....but they simply won't work on me. In this discussion is one person saying everyone has rights and lets see what we can do to make everyone happy and the us one side that is unbending and holding to a Draconian stance that everyone has to do what they want or else

I think it's time to look in the mirror yourself and ask yourself at what point you became comfortable with being a bully

I am actually a very nice person that enjoys helping people in various forms but I do not like being threatened by someone on a power trip into doing what I don't want to do.

I don't like dogs at all and I have that right...I also have a right to pursue employment and thst shouldn't be dictated by someone else without any sense of compromise


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> Lmao......I can just tell your getting frustrated with the fact you cant bully me into submitting to your will
> 
> You are actually more attempting to portray or compare me to racists or misogynist. That's funny to me.
> 
> ...


I don't need to bully you into anything, I have the law on my side. If you ever refused to take me, that's easily solved. However, you've already stated that you wouldn't refuse, so the ADA has already bent you to their will (since you want to put it that way). I do wish you could see how discriminatory you are. However, as is the case with most discriminatory people, they can't see it themselves. I don't believe for a second that you are racist or sexist. Your problem is with the medical equipment that a disabled person needs to use. You openly admit to it by distinguishing service dogs from other medical equipment (ignoring the fact that for many service dogs are the only medical equipment that works with their disability). You openly admit to it by insisting that we should be discriminated against based on the medical equipment we have to use. Yet you can't see it yourself. Because of this, yes, you are discriminatory (against the disabled). I'm sure your daughter will be proud of you for teaching her to be that way though. Yes, I'm a bit frustrated with your inability to see it because I don't think that you want to be (or see yourself as) a discriminatory person. Yet, you're perfectly comfortable with discriminating against me.

You certainly do have the right to not like dogs (the ADA never says you have to like it), and you certainly have the right to employment (perhaps not for a specific employment, but for employment in general.. many people don't like their employment either). However, you do not have the right to discriminate or violate the law. It's really as simple as that.


----------



## YouEvenLyftBruh (Feb 10, 2018)

handiacefailure said:


> *How do Uber drivers with Dog Allergies handles the new service dog requirement*


*You must take any passenger claiming to have a service dog. The End.*

What you do to prepare is your own business.

Should you take antihistamines every ride just in case you get a service animal in your car? Antihistamines take anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes to work, and must be taken BEFORE typically for them to have any effect... so kinda pointless...

Think indentured servitude:

*Indentured Servants in Colonial Virginia 
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Indentured_Servants_in_Colonial_Virginia*​


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

1) most importantly....as I understand your affliction you have difficulty in understanding social interaction so let me give you a hint.....dont EVER bring up a daughter...her relationship with her father, or how she is being raised in any sort of a negative light or you should be prepared to be hammered unmercifully. I will give you a mulligan on that one ....but only once. I raised both my children to be wonderful people.... and far better people then you are. They know that bullying others to get their way isn't appropriate behavior

2) I dont discriminate against disabled people whatsoever and no matter how many times you accuse me of it won't make it true. I understand that this is how you try and control a conversation and bully people but it simply isn't going to work with me. I have never stated that a disabled person should not have the ability to use a service like rideshare at all, if you think I have I want you to prove that. I simply stated I think it would be best for everyone to figure out an easy way to place people with disabilities in the best possible situation. Putting a person with a Service animal into a vehicle that the owner does not want them there isnt an ideal situation and can end up jeopardizing the safety of everyone concerned. 

The ONLY reason this isn't addressed as it could be is because people like you would immediately sue everyone possible to stop progress....stop logical thinking..... stop innovation and make it all about your feigned victimization. 

I wonder why you can't see that?

Again.....on one side of this argument is a person saying that everyone's rights matter and let's progress to a point where everyone can be happy. Let's look past ancient wrongs and learn how to compromise to everyone's benefit

On the other side is you and people like you that think that they can hide behind draconian rules that stifle progress and compromise. That use fear tactics and unbending rhetoric to force everyone to forfeit their right of free choice to placate their internal victimization complex

I enjoy how you constantly now talk about how the ADA laws get changed every so often now to increase the people its "protects"

But you dont mention what changes they are

Let's discuss how ADA laws were changed requiring gas stations to put Braille stickers on the pumps. What's next....Braille stickers at gun ranges? That's about as ludicrous

You claim to hate the lawyers in that video you posted (as everyone should) but seriously how much of a step above them are you really?


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

Speaking of dogs...


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> I'm done here this discussion is a waste of time because that suggested fix for the issue, would fix the issue, concerns about it's ability to do so notwithstanding, but it's not getting implemented so we're never going to know for sure if it would work. Nothing presented so far legally precludes the suggestion from being attempted, and even if it turned out it currently does in some tangential way that needs a good legal challenge because the suggested fix is perfectly reasonable and accomplishes the both the letter and intent of the actual law. That said I feel no urge to defend it any longer, especially against what are essentially the same complaints over and over.
> 
> It's not really about meaning well Pawtism. I see a problem and offered a solution that would work if implemented.
> 
> Nothing anyone has posted so far precludes that though I know a few well meaning people believe they have.


There's a tone deafness you're clinging to that is causing your obvious frustration and inability to consider the LEGAL AND FACTUAL DETAILS that are _literally_ the only points that MUST be considered if there's going to be a change regarding this issue. The first few sentences in the comment I've replied to kind of address your problem yet you still want to hold on for dear life, digging in your heels, with your fingers plugging both ears while you yell out "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

I get it - you don't want to argue the point since you feel you've suggested a viable and technically possible fix to the Service Dog matter, and what we're telling you about the facts and legality (which make your solution impossible) is probably making you want to slam your head into a wall.

If you could just do what YOU are asking US to do - try understanding the OTHER (legal) side - in order to better comprehend exactly why your ideas cannot happen. It's bigger than Uber, bigger than drivers as independent contractors, and bigger than both Working together; there are constitutional LAWS that were put into place that prevent your suggestions from coming to fruition.

It will probably be a lot less frustrating if you simply take the time to read the laws on the subject. Not only will you have a "lightbulb moment" in understanding why the laws were originally created, I bet you will then understand why your ideas (as terrific as they might seem to you now) cannot be considered or attempted without people breaking laws left and right. And most importantly, why what you're suggesting is wrong on a legal and human level across he board.

Good luck - I know you don't want to argue this point anymore - but please at least consider educating yourself on the law involved, and why drivers do not get the option of opting in or ot of having service dogs in their cars.

Thank you.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Julescase said:


> There's a tone deafness you're clinging to that is causing your obvious frustration and inability to consider the LEGAL AND FACTUAL DETAILS that are _literally_ the only points that MUST be considered if there's going to be a change regarding this issue. The first few sentences in the comment I've replied to kind of address your problem yet you still want to hold on for dear life, digging in your heels, with your fingers plugging both ears while you yell out "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
> 
> I get it - you don't want to argue the point since you feel you've suggested a viable and technically possible fix to the Service Dog matter, and what we're telling you about the facts and legality (which make your solution impossible) is probably making you want to slam your head into a wall.
> 
> ...


Yes in 1990 they enacted a basic law to protect disabled people and guarantee certain rights. Since then there has been no law in America so unbelievably abused and twisted to serve as basically a way to bully people.

Again....... Braille stickers on gas pumps

You proud of this law that now enables advocacy lawyers to run around to parking lots looking for the most minute infraction so they can extort money from local businesses owners???

You like this law that now states I have to forfeit my right to choose what works best for me?

Just because an original law has been twisted every which way it can be to generate money fir lawyers doesn't make it a good law anymore.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Julescase said:


> There's a tone deafness you're clinging to that is causing your obvious frustration


No frustration here at all.

I simply just disagree with you, or we can reverse it You disagree with me. The difference between us seems to be someone's willingness to keep personalizing the disagreement which if I didn't know better might be considered a sign of frustration with an inability to convince the opposing side, no? See I don't mind if you disagree with me, and I certainly don't mind that I disagree with you so there's no room for frustration in that.

So, see, where did that post of yours get us? Nowhere really. You still disagree with me, I still disagree with you. Personalizing debates never works. Funny how that works, ha.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> 1) most importantly....as I understand your affliction you have difficulty in understanding social interaction so let me give you a hint.....dont EVER bring up a daughter...her relationship with her father, or how she is being raised in any sort of a negative light or you should be prepared to be hammered unmercifully. I will give you a mulligan on that one ....but only once. I raised both my children to be wonderful people.... and far better people then you are. They know that bullying others to get their way isn't appropriate behavior
> 
> 2) I dont discriminate against disabled people whatsoever and no matter how many times you accuse me of it won't make it true. I understand that this is how you try and control a conversation and bully people but it simply isn't going to work with me. I have never stated that a disabled person should not have the ability to use a service like rideshare at all, if you think I have I want you to prove that. I simply stated I think it would be best for everyone to figure out an easy way to place people with disabilities in the best possible situation. Putting a person with a Service animal into a vehicle that the owner does not want them there isnt an ideal situation and can end up jeopardizing the safety of everyone concerned.
> 
> ...


First, let me state that I meant no offense towards your daughter (or your relationship with her). My apologies if I came off that way. Looking back at it (after reading your post), I do see now how it could have come off that way. Again, that was not my intent and I do apologize for it. I think maybe we have a misunderstanding here. You seem (at least to me) to be arguing that individual drivers should have the option to decide if they want to take a service dog or not. If that is what you're saying, what I'm arguing is that by having that option, they have the ability (and have historically proven) that they can and will discriminate and leave people who use service animals without a ride. Furthermore, I'm not even talking about "the past", people now, right here on this forum, have outright stated that they would openly discriminate and don't even care if they get deactivated over it. This isn't a "sins of the past" kinda deal. The ADA was setup the way it was expressly because of this (because you aren't disabled and need a service dog, you don't get to see the constant discrimination). There is nothing "ancient" about this.

As for me trying to stop progress, I've already presented the changes I'd make to the ADA, but I have no more direct power to change it than you do. Your example of Braille stickers at the gas pumps is a perfect example of how you are discriminatory, even though you refuse to admit it. Think this through for a second. Is it not, at all possible, that someone else's daughter, who is legally blind, knowing she'll never get to drive herself, might want to pump the gas in her fathers car while he runs in and gets them a soda? You assume that legally blind people have no vision at all, but many have some vision, they can see well enough to make out the edge of the car, know how far it is from the back of the car to the gas tank, and can put the hose in just fine. What they can't do, is read which is regular unleaded and which is premium (or worse, diesel, although the hose size probably solved that issue). How are they to know? Oh, how about those Braille stickers... imagine that. Disabled people just want to have as normal a life as they possibly can. If you weren't so discriminatory to them, maybe you could see that. If you even tried, even for a minute, to put yourself in their shoes, maybe you could see it. You're so busy railing on about how bad the ADA is, you fail to see that it's exactly people like you who make it so necessary.

I hate the lawyers in that video because they exploit a law designed to protect a class of people that sadly, even in this day and age, still need protecting. If they went around, sued every place in town and just made them fix the violations, instead of taking cash to make the whole thing go away, personally, I'd applaud them. Sure, there is no money in that, which is probably why no one does it (sadly). As it stands now, people come to us for help, we help them. I'm quite proud to defend those who, frankly, shouldn't even need defending, but alas, it's the world we live in.

As for Braille at gun ranges.. You know, that wouldn't actually surprise me. While I can't claim to personally know anyone who is blind who shoots, I'm willing to bet someone out there does. How about at the ski lifts? There are, in fact, several relatively famous blind skiers. Does that completely shatter your world view? I know you, and people like you, would rather people with disabilities just stayed home, but they shouldn't have to. It's exactly comments like "Let's discuss how ADA laws were changed requiring gas stations to put Braille stickers on the pumps. What's next....Braille stickers at gun ranges? That's about as ludicrous" that prove you're discriminatory towards the disabled.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> First, let me state that I meant no offense towards your daughter (or your relationship with her). My apologies if I came off that way. Looking back at it (after reading your post), I do see now how it could have come off that way. Again, that was not my intent and I do apologize for it.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Just so I'm clear, I'm not insinuating that a person who is completely blind (all darkness) couldn't also get the hose in and pump gas, in fact I'll specifically state they can. It was just an example, a situation I happened to have first hand knowledge of.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> No frustration here at all.
> 
> I simply just disagree with you, or we can reverse it You disagree with me. The difference between us seems to be someone's willingness to keep personalizing the disagreement which if I didn't know better might be considered a sign of frustration with an inability to convince the opposing side, no? See I don't mind if you disagree with me, and I certainly don't mind that I disagree with you so there's no room for frustration in that.
> 
> So, see, where did that post of yours get us? Nowhere really. You still disagree with me, I still disagree with you. Personalizing debates never works. Funny how that works, ha.


But there's nothing "personal" involved - and there's absolutely no "personalizing" the issue - it's a factual law we're discussing. I'm not sure what it is you believe I'm personalizing; the law is the law. I'm just looking at the facts and what drivers (as small business owners) must do to comply with this specific law.

You, of course, are allowed an opinion about the law. I think possibly your opinion is what you're referring to as being personalized - but there's nothing involved in my responses to make it personal. There's the law, and there's what happens if a business breaks a law. Period. It's not personal (unless you're someone with a service animal who has been discriminated against- THEN it would definitely be a personal issue).

This ambiguity you seem set on believing is exactly why it would be a good idea for you to educate yourself on the facts involved- it is always smart to understand the details and why the law was put into place originally. I think once you read everything, you will feel less attached to the idea "fix" you keep suggesting would be possible (when in fact it isn't possible at all if we as drivers are going to obey the law).

You may also want to have a better understanding of the status of "employee" vs. "independent contractor" - especially when referencing a driver's relationship with Uber. I truly think a lot of the disconnect here ( your inability to accept this law as fact and your apparent need to insist on my inability to see things "your way" or however you worded it when I can totally see what you're saying and I understand what you think would be an easy fix to the perceived problem) would be solved if you read up on the issue. Pawtism has created a great thread containing so much helpful information- I bet 30 minutes of reading would save you a lifetime of frustration.

In reality, you're probably going to deal with a true service animal one or two times out of every 1,000 rides IF that. So if you don't want to know and understand the facts behind the law, that's your prerogative. Just like Bobby Brown always said.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Julescase said:


> But there's nothing "personal" involved


Except all too frequently your words in response.

For example statements like this:

"This ambiguity you seem set on believing is exactly why it would be a good idea for you to educate yourself"

That's about as personal as it gets. Perhaps some educating on personalizing debate is in order for someone since when denying the doing of it it crops up yet again.

Also these are your opinions. They're wrong with respect to what I've covered here. I have opinions as well they disagree with yours.

That's life.

Personalizing it like one of us keeps doing resolves nothing. In fact that just makes people, me here, go into ignore mode for the most part.

You should have noted by now that I'm not engaging any points you make about the plan any longer, and if you're considering the possibility that it is, it's not because of the stunning merit of your words, or arguments, nope, not at all.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Julescase said:


> In reality, you're probably going to deal with a true service animal one or two times out of every 1,000 rides IF that. So if you don't want to know and understand the facts behind the law, that's your prerogative. Just like Bobby Brown always said.


This is the thing that I think a lot of people miss. They make such a big deal out of it like we're crawling out of the woodwork or something. Only 20% of the US population has a disability at all (otherwise we'd be "normal" lol), about 1% of those with a disability use a service dog. That's 1% of 20%, or 0.002 of the US population. The US population is estimated at about 325 million nationally, so that's about 650,000 people nationally (out of 325 million). That's a tiny number, frankly. That's 20,000 to 1. You, statistically speaking, have to encounter 20,000 people before you get one with a service dog. Obviously people with disabilities may be forced to take uber/lyft more often than someone without a disability, so adjustments have to be made. Even still, your odds of running into a real service dog is very, very low. People really shouldn't get so worked up about it.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> This is the thing that I think a lot of people miss. They make such a big deal out of it like we're crawling out of the woodwork or something.


I've acknowledged that already as you know, but that really doesn't change the incidence of angst over the issue with drivers. Now one can argue that that angst is out of all proportion to the scope of the issue, and you've covered the numbers, and you wouldn't be wrong. I certainly would agree with you.

Yet still that angst with drivers persists.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> I've acknowledged that already as you know, but that really doesn't change the incidence of angst over the issue with drivers. Now one can argue that that angst is out of all proportion to the scope of the issue, and you've covered the numbers, and you wouldn't be wrong. I certainly would agree with you.
> 
> Yet still that angst with drivers persists.


If we're honest, I think the problem with the drivers is that they fail to realize they are actually a business. It's not "ride share", it's a transportation business, and they've failed to think that way. Part of that is Uber and Lyft's fault. They sold themselves to drivers as "oh, you're just sharing your car with people who will be new friends", then SURPRISE, you're an actual business and you have to pay taxes and follow the law. At first, I think their confusion in it all was understandable, but no one is really that surprised anymore. Anyone who is an active driver today should be well aware of what the real story is.

And, as we've both mentioned, fake service dogs certainly don't help the issue at all.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> If we're honest, I think the problem with the drivers is that they fail to realize they are actually a business. It's not "ride share", it's a transportation business, and they've failed to think that way. Part of that is Uber and Lyft's fault. They sold themselves to drivers as "oh, you're just sharing your car with people who will be new friends", then SURPRISE, you're an actual business and you have to pay taxes and follow the law. At first, I think their confusion in it all was understandable, but no one is really that surprised anymore. Anyone who is an active driver today should be well aware of what the real story is.


Yeah but you know as long as all of the work comes from Uber, and Lyft and all of the terms are one sided in Uber's and Lyft's favor, that's certainly understandable. I believe under those circumstances, and others it's a stretch for these companies to state they're not employers.

But then again I think drivers stand to lose more than they gain if Uber, and Lyft were rightly found legally to be employers, which I'm thinking they will eventually.



Pawtism said:


> And, as we've both mentioned, fake service dogs certainly don't help the issue at all.


Yeah we should do something about that. I wonder where we could start to get a handle on that?

Ok my bad now I'm backsliding. I admit it.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Yeah but you know as long as all of the work comes from Uber, and Lyft and all of the terms are one sided in Uber's and Lyft's favor, that's certainly understandable. I believe under those circumstances, and others it's a stretch for these companies to state they're not employers.
> 
> But then again I think drivers stand to lose more than they gain if Uber, and Lyft were rightly found legally to be employers, which I'm thinking they will eventually.


Another thing we agree on.  Putting the ADA aside for a moment (as that's federal law, not a company policy), the actual company polices do tend to be one sided (against the driver). That is certainly going to cause friction. Especially when they do things like raise rates for pax, but don't pass any of that on to the drivers. That being said, I also agree with you that if they were employees, it would actually be worse for the drivers. Sure there would be some benefits (like benefits hehe), but they fail to consider things like, being told that they have to take a certain ride, what areas they have to work out of, what hours they can work, etc. It would be a nightmare for them, ultimately.



Wonkytonk said:


> Yeah we should do something about that. I wonder where we could start to get a handle on that?
> 
> Ok my bad now I'm backsliding. I admit it.


Given the current legalities (and considering that even my plan is currently illegal), the "two questions" is really our only (current) defense. I won't disagree with you that there should be a better way (clearly we disagree on what that better way is, and let's not rehash it), but I will agree that getting rid of the fakers would be a worthy goal anyway.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Sure there would be some benefits (like benefits hehe), but they fail to consider things like, being told that they have to take a certain ride, what areas they have to work out of, what hours they can work, etc. It would be a nightmare for them, ultimately.


I think a lot of us have already thought it through. There are some that haven't though, I agree.

I think it would kill both companies. I doubt there would be anything they could do short of damn near doubling or tripping the pay rate that would mollify drivers into a state of acquiescence. I seriously doubt that would work. Drivers want/rely on the ability to log on and off at will. They'll demand it and the companies won't be able to allow it and stay in business.



Pawtism said:


> I won't disagree with you that there should be a better way (clearly we disagree on what that better way is, and let's not rehash it), but I will agree that getting rid of the fakers would be a worthy goal anyway.


Two things need to happen, and both Uber and Lyft need to get on top of it!

1. Educate drivers on the incidence of service animals.

That means nothing if they don't tackle the incidence of fraudulent service animal ride requests which leads to:

2. Begin an education program that at once informs riders that not only is it morally reprehensible to claim a pet as a service animal fraudulently, but that it's also illegal and subject to prosecution. In addition these companies should enlist the aid of account holders to report fraud so that the incidences can be forwarded to the appropriate governing body. And if they can figure out a way to enlist the aid of the public to help shame these entitled ?ouchebags that would be perfection. It would bring a tear of joy to my eyes really.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> I think a lot of us have already thought it through. There are some that haven't though, I agree.
> 
> I think it would kill both companies. I doubt there would be anything they could do short of damn near doubling or tripping the pay rate that would mollify drivers into a state of acquiescence. I seriously doubt that would work. Drivers want/rely on the ability to log on and off at will. They'll demand it and the companies won't be able to allow it and stay in business.
> 
> ...


I actually agree with you on this, on both points actually (technically 3 points hehe, but on all the above).  I'm a fan of name and shame. It's no secret that many handlers do record. For most, they'll tell you it's so that when something does happen, they have evidence. But for some, one of the first things they do is post it to YouTube.  If we could get the general public on board with this, that would be super helpful.

Education was actually the reason I posted my service dog guide thread. I'm hoping with more drivers armed with knowledge of both legitimate reasons things happen, and how to identify the fakers (and defend themselves against them), some of that understanding can spread. I'd like to educate the pax more too. More and more cities and states are cracking down (not just for uber/lyft, but everywhere), and that will help some too. Anyway, my point was I agree with you on these points anyway.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> With statements like this you're personalizing the debate. I don't particularly care for engaging in that type of debate style. It's counter productive.
> 
> Simply repeating yourself doesn't change the facts, or my reply to you. Please see above where I've already addressed your concerns. You may not like the response but it's not going to change no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
> 
> ...


Just a side note - I didn't repeat myself in my comment, as you proclaimed I did (above). You actually twice quoted something I said only once and _then_ you accused me of repeating myself in order to "change the facts or [your] reply to me" (whatever that means).


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> If a driver sets a preference Uber honoring that preference is not discrimination.


That's literally EXACTLY what discrimination is.

Any member of a protected class (including but not limited to: one's race, religion, sexual identity, disability, etc) that a driver "prefers not to accept in their vehicle" would literally be victims of discrimination should they not be allowed in the vehicle.

This is what discrimination is. *Literally*.

For the other poster throughout he thread who keeps saying to stop using a person's religion or race in comparison to a disabled person's use of a service dog: Clearly, the inability to make the correlation is due to not understanding the general concepts under the law. Under the law, people cannot be discriminated against due to their race. Period. We all accept and agree on that, right? People cannot be discriminated against because they practice a specific religion. Meaning, an Uber driver cannot arrive to a pickup, see what they perceive to be "muslim" clothing on a pax, and decide they don't want to have a muslim person in their car. We're all still following and in agreement on this hopefully...Yes, refusing a pax due to their religion is illegal and not to be an occurrence while driving rideshare. Can't happen, or the driver is breaking the law and will definitely be in trouble. SO......here we go.......this is where we ALL need to be on the same page, and this is where the connection seems to be a bit frayed for some drivers out there: Also under the law, people cannot be discriminated against if they are disabled. "Disabled" can be one of hundreds, if not thousands, of conditions. Some of these conditions use wheelchairs, some use crutches, some use ventilators, some use seeing eye dogs, some use seizure-sensing & warning dogs. The last 2 examples are Service Dogs and these dogs, in the eyes of the law, are medical necessities for the disabled folks. THAT is why there is the comparison between one's race, religion, and the need for a service dog (due to a disability). There was a poster here who kept saying "stop with the comparison between A DOG and someone's race - they have nothing to do with each other" but THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^ what I just wrote above - is why the statuses (race/religion and disabilities) are 100% absolutely related and perfect comparisons with regards to the discrimination issue at hand.

(I know it's a thread that everyone seems to be done with, but if there is _anyone_ out in the UP community who is still reading and learning and hopefully getting some kind of education from these posts, I just needed to respond to some of these comments, including the one above. You as drivers need to understand and more importantly COMPLY with these laws - and information is power - so the more you know and understand the specifics, the better and easier your lives will be. )

Sorry, I'm probably annoying many people with my responses, but I cannot see ignorance go unaddressed when there may be new drivers on here trying to learn and understand why they have to do certain things while they drive.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> Yup.....videos like that make me think even less of attorneys (hard to believe that's possible) and ADA "advocacy groups"
> 
> Using peoples handicaps to punish people and businesses just because you can......very honorable
> 
> ...


You're showing, once again, that you haven't educated yourself on the issue. And this "archaic" law you speak of is around 30 years old......do you know what the word "archaic" means? Many laws we follow today are 100, 200, 300 years old.

The "law [people] are clinging to" that you have such a frightening and strange (and honestly, quite baffling) aversion to is actually evolving and improving- for those it's PROTECTING: the disabled. It certainly doesn't need to be changed so your life can be more flexible and a little bit easier.

Let me ask you this. I'm not sure of your age (by the "archaic" comment, despite the incorrect usage, I'm guessing you are under 30 years old) but let's say you have a child one day, and God forbid, she's born with tuberculosis and stricken to a wheelchair for life. Do you think your hypothetical daughter should be treated with the same dignity and respect (and have the same quality of life) that all other non-disabled people have when she goes out in public? Should she have to wait 30 extra (additional) minutes more than all other customers to be seated at a restaurant just because she's in a wheelchair, even if there's a table ready and people who arrived after she did are being seated first? Should she not be allowed to ride on buses (if she lives in a city where public transportation is the norm) because she's dependent on a wheelchair? Should she not be able to go to the movie theater to see a popular film because a venue she needs to sit inside doesn't have a wheelchair ramp for her to use in order to enter the building?

Your current statements regarding the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) laws are akin to all of the examples put forth in the above paragraph. It is EXACTLY what you are suggesting, I just switched the particular disability and medical device. But there is no difference (per the law) between a wheelchair and a Service Dog. And please don't say "IT'S A DOG - OF COURSE IT IS DIFFERENT" because that statement will be both wrong and incredibly ignorant.

I'm only asking you to educate yourself on the matter - you don't have to like it once you understand it, but PLEASE take the time to read the key points. I've said it before on this thread: Information is power, and it's never a bad thing to have more information in your knowledge arsenal when you lay your head on your pillow at night than when you woke up that morning. Learn about what the law says and why. Who it's protecting and how it came about. Why there is such a need for it, and why it's evolving to the benefit of the disabled (as it should, obviously) as opposed to being broken down in the way you're trying to oddly suggest.



RedSteel said:


> Seeing a very noticeable pattern with your responce
> 
> Everything is sue sue sue...it kind of shows my point that the law is abused because it can be
> 
> ...


But in the situation you gave (giving a false report of urine on floor and 1-star and pax suing in their defense since it was a lie) that's not the law being _abused_. That's the law being IN EFFECT because what YOU would be doing is illegal. Do you not see that? You wouldn't have any proof (why would you have dash cam proof - it wouldn't have happened?) and then you're deactivated and then possibly sued by pax, rightfully. Out of a job and any money you might have put away or saved would probably be gone since you'd lose the suit.

How can you be convinced to read the Service Animal and ADA law bullet points so you stop making head-shakingly odd comments that are literally 100% NOT how things work in our world today? I don't think I've ever come into contact with someone who _*so*_ needs to understand the facts and how the law helps those who are disabled. It's like every time you comment, you insert your foot even further down your throat. And then, just when I think you have outdone yourself, you somehow add yet another statement that is more baffling than the last. PLEASE BECOME INFORMED OF THE FACTS - I AM BEGGING YOU.



RedSteel said:


> Lol
> 
> I find hilarious how black and white you two find this subject...... almost to a fascist level
> 
> ...


Again, I'm not sure why you can't seem to understand this: crutches for one disabled person are the EXACT same thing in the eyes of the law as a Service Dog is to another disabled person. Both medically necessary. There's no nonsense involved, and your ignorance is showing. Like a wheelchair, a prosthetic leg, an oxygen tank.....the list goes on. This is the LAW. There's no "black and white" or "facism" (talk about lol! Lolol!) - there's: 1) following the law, and 2) breaking the law.

And it's not "their way or the highway" it's "The Law" and everyone has to follow it. That's how this country works.

PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF. I predict a sad, miserable and potentially very BROKE future for you if you drive with your current mindset. You are actually scaring me a bit. I can't believe there are folks out there who are really this lacking in factual knowledge.

Absolutely mind blowing.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

RedSteel said:


> 1) most importantly....as I understand your affliction you have difficulty in understanding social interaction so let me give you a hint.....dont EVER bring up a daughter...her relationship with her father, or how she is being raised in any sort of a negative light or you should be prepared to be hammered unmercifully. I will give you a mulligan on that one ....but only once. I raised both my children to be wonderful people.... and far better people then you are. They know that bullying others to get their way isn't appropriate behavior
> 
> 2) I dont discriminate against disabled people whatsoever and no matter how many times you accuse me of it won't make it true. I understand that this is how you try and control a conversation and bully people but it simply isn't going to work with me. I have never stated that a disabled person should not have the ability to use a service like rideshare at all, if you think I have I want you to prove that. I simply stated I think it would be best for everyone to figure out an easy way to place people with disabilities in the best possible situation. Putting a person with a Service animal into a vehicle that the owner does not want them there isnt an ideal situation and can end up jeopardizing the safety of everyone concerned.
> 
> ...


Are you truly trying to convince everyone on this thread that you aren't discriminating against those with disabilities after the myriad of comments you've written that are LITERALLY filled with discriminatory statements, comments, suggestions, and such? Do you not understand that what you're writing is discriminatory?

No one has bullied you once on this thread. Begged you to educate yourself? Yes. I'll take full responsibility for wanting you to read about, absorb, and comprehend the ADA laws so you discontinue making 100% discriminatory statements. It's obvious you don't understand the law or its various points, since you keep referencing your disbelief in the 100% FACT that service dogs are considered medically necessary equipment for their disabled owners. Please understand: THIS IS FACT AND NOT DEBATABLE. It's not up for debate. You can have your opinion, obviously, but your opinion proves you're discriminatory. You can't have it both ways.

I really hope your children haven't learned to accept any of your discriminatory beliefs over the years. Since people who discriminate often pass their opinions on to their kids, it worries me.



Wonkytonk said:


> Except all too frequently your words in response.
> 
> For example statements like this:
> 
> ...


But you do seem absolutely set on believing it, despite having an arsenal of factual evidence, law specific details, and very informed posters confirming that what you believe is not fact. I don't know how else to describe something when, despite being given mountains of proof and evidence, you are absolutely digging in your heels and shaking your head and refusing to accept these facts as truth and the truth as fact. It's not a grey area; law is law and not complying with the law means you're breaking it. Yet literally, you're 100% intent on only believing your own version of how things should be. In comment after comment.

That's pure dedication, my man. You seem absolutely SET on believing _your_ version of the truth. No other way to say it.


----------



## RedSteel (Apr 8, 2017)

Julescase said:


> You're showing, once again, that you haven't educated yourself on the issue. And this "archaic" law you speak of is around 30 years old......do you know what the word "archaic" means? Many laws we follow today are 100, 200, 300 years old.
> 
> The "law [people] are clinging to" that you have such a frightening and strange (and honestly, quite baffling) aversion to is actually evolving and improving- for those it's PROTECTING: the disabled. It certainly doesn't need to be changed so your life can be more flexible and a little bit easier.
> 
> ...


And at one time the Law recognized POC as only worth 2/3 of a caucasian person

The law deemed women incapable of voting

Laws sometimes are wrong

And you just want to hold onto the law aspect like is the holy grail because it supports your ability to bully people

All I am saying is isn't it better for EVERYONE to see if there is a way to make it work for all..... your the ones that are rigid and dogmatic. I'm the flexible progressive one in this conversation.

You say that I cant tell the difference between things but you can't seem to see that a dog is a dog.... the fact it is breathing seems to escape you

As for how I raise my children......dont go there

If you want to take this conversation down that path I assure you I will cease to be pleasant

I raised my kids to be better then someone like you.... they have compassion, intelligence and dare I say common sense. If I put a crutch, wheelchair,prosthetic leg and a dog in front from of them and asked them "which one is unlike the others and why" I am 99.9999976% sure they would both correctly pick the dog

I am not discriminatory in any way shape or form no matter how many times you want to claim I am. I don't have any Ill feelings towards any race,gender or handicapped status and I help anyone I can. I simply have stated I dont want someone's dog in my private property such as my car or my home.....that is my right as a citizen. So you can continue to say I am discriminating against people because if you say it enough times to yourself you will start to believe it

Or maybe are you trying the LeVar Ball method and "speaking it into existence".......not a winning theory

As for my financial health going forward..... don't worry sweetie I will be just fine. Uber is a once a week thing I do...1) because I enjoy it and 2) A sense of community service.....if the local college students and such are going to show the level of maturity and awareness that drinking and driving is bad and they take Ubers at night so they don't risk peoples lives then I want to be the for them and give them safe rides home.

I have a real world job that pays me plenty


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Julescase said:


> Just a side note -


Yeah. Stopped reading what you have to say already.



Julescase said:


> ...


I believe I covered how you repeatedly personalizing the debate has essentially tuned me out of what you post on this subject.


----------



## ZAutobahn (Jul 17, 2019)

Kodyhead said:


> Honestly how many people have died from a dog allergy anyway? Maybe a Runny nose or itchy eyes? It may not even be the dog or something the dog rolled around in. No anaphylactic shock


How many have died? I don't know. But I do know that severe allergies to animal dander can cause angioedema, which is a life-threatening emergency. The current law is not good. People with documented severe animal allergies should be considered disabled and protected under the ADA law, but instead they are discriminated against by the ADA law as it now stands.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

ZAutobahn said:


> The current law is not good.


It has many failings. As it is written, it encourages abuse.

Another group protected by the ADA are those with "mobility" disabilities. One of the benefits that some of these people get are better parking in spots designated for them. In order to use those spaces, the driver must secure a placard or sticker for his vehicle. In order to secure said placard/sticker, the disabled person must submit proof of disability to the issuing authority. Even if it is obvious that he has a disability, he must still submit the written proof.

WHY must he do this? .............to prevent abuse. He can not simply park in the space and tell the police that he has a disability.

It is not that difficult to require the dog owners to do something similar. That would prevent abuse.

The attitudes of both of the majors on this is less than acceptable, as well. As it is, when a customer complains about you, these companies deprive you of any means of defending yourself. When a person purports to be complaining about denial of service due to an alleged "service animal", these two give you LESS THAN ZERO chance of defending yourself. You are automatically guilty even when proved innocent.

Gr*yft*'s policies are the worst of the two. Gr*yft* not only requires that you accept the animal, it requires that you:

Like it.
Like it when the animal makes a mess.
Like it when the animal is hostile to you.
Like it when the animal induces allergic reactions.



ZAutobahn said:


> People with documented severe animal allergies should be considered disabled and protected under the ADA law, but instead they are discriminated against by the ADA law as it now stands.


The government that implements this law should have to issue standards that determine when one disability trumps another one. The government that enforces this law does not want to do that, as there would be numerous challenges, court cases, protests.and bad press. It prefers arbitrary lack of standards, as it can not be held to anything when it acts.

One of the problems with these laws that are designed to "protect" these "protected classes" is that they go too far and harm those excluded from the protected class. Their original intent was to level the proverbial playing field. The reality is that they tilt it the other way.

As it is, though, it is the law that you must accommodate these _aminals_ . The law does not require that you like it (Y-E-T), it simply requires that you do it. Uber does not require that you like it, but, it does require that you do it. In addition to doing it, Lyft DOES require that you like it.


----------



## Bonmot (Dec 14, 2018)

I don't know anything about pet allergies, but would a driver with an allergy be able to wear a dust mask of some sort and maybe crack the back windows a bit?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Bonmot said:


> I don't know anything about pet allergies, but would a driver with an allergy be able to wear a dust mask of some sort and maybe crack the back windows a bit?


It is rare that rolling down the window helps. 
Sometimes, the mask will help, but, again, not always

If you did rolled down the window or used a mask on Lyft and the customer complained, it is likely that you would get a strike or even 
be de-activated as Lyft would take that as "not liking it". Lyft not only requires that you accommodate the animal, Lyft requires that you like it and that you like the adverse consequences of accommodating the fake service animal.


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

handiacefailure said:


> I'm curious as to how you guys handle this and if you have any rights.
> 
> I know someone that wants to start driving for Uber and on the last upgrade I had to agree to take service dogs even if I have a dog allergy. Not a fan of dogs in my car since I have two cats and when I transport them if I have recently transported my parents dogs and they pick up the scent, but I'd be willing to do it if I had a passenger with a dog.
> 
> ...


I am allergic to wheat, which is the main component of flour. Therefore, I don't work in a bakery. See how this works?


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

DexNex said:


> I am allergic to wheat, which is the main component of flour. Therefore, I don't work in a bakery. See how this works?


You should have still worked in a bakery and DEMANDED they not use wheat! &#128540;



Julescase said:


> Just a side note - I didn't repeat myself in my comment, as you proclaimed I did (above). You actually twice quoted something I said only once and _then_ you accused me of repeating myself in order to "change the facts or [your] reply to me" (whatever that means).


I don't understand &#129300; could you _repeat_ that please &#129303;


----------



## Jettero (Aug 10, 2017)

In over 2 years of driving (2500+ rides), I've only had 4 rides with dogs; and only one pax said it was a service dog. I'll take dogs any day over screaming, whining, sneezing kids.


----------

