# Ten year old blind girl and teacher denied ride by uber driver.



## observer

http://www.12news.com/mb/news/natio...-teacher-denied-ride-by-uber-driver/279801750

NATION NOW
*10-year-old blind girl and teacher denied ride by Uber driver*
WESH (NBC) , KPNX2 days ago
Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn









WESH

Addison Burgess

A 10-year-old blind girl and her teacher were denied a ride by an Uber driver because they had a service dog Wednesday.

The Orlando Uber driver has been suspended and could lose his Uber driving privileges, pending an investigation.

10-year-old Addison Burgess and her teacher, Amanda Lannan, who is also blind, and were trying to get to a camp field trip.

The camp is meant to help blind children adapt to life's challenges.

"I explained to him this was a service animal. I showed him the harness, I showed him the tag," Lannan said.

Uber said it is against company policy and the law to discriminate against riders with service animals.


----------



## dumbdriver

as an independent contractor Uber cannot require you to pick up anybody by law if you are terminated for not picking them up you will sue them and win many drivers have already sold them and collected their money there's a lot of things they're not telling us they don't own your car they don't . they have gone to several different courts around the United States telling judges they have no drivers they have no cars there for they have no liability so they need to tell us nothing


----------



## tohunt4me

This stuff has to end.

Service dogs must be accepted.

Too much of this on the news !


----------



## Papa Sarducci

tohunt4me said:


> This stuff has to end.
> 
> Service dogs must be accepted.
> 
> Too much of this on the news !


It will end when Uber gets its day in court, loses, and is declared a transportation company.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

dumbdriver said:


> as an independent contractor Uber cannot require you to pick up anybody by law if you are terminated for not picking them up you will sue them and win many drivers have already sold them and collected their money there's a lot of things they're not telling us they don't own your car they don't . they have gone to several different courts around the United States telling judges they have no drivers they have no cars there for they have no liability so they need to tell us nothing


I think your screen name says it all.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

dumbdriver said:


> as an independent contractor Uber cannot require you to pick up anybody by law if you are terminated for not picking them up you will sue them and win many drivers have already sold them and collected their money there's a lot of things they're not telling us they don't own your car they don't . they have gone to several different courts around the United States telling judges they have no drivers they have no cars there for they have no liability so they need to tell us nothing


You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You couldn't be more wrong. Your tax status doesn't exempt you from having to follow federal laws.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

tohunt4me said:


> This stuff has to end.
> 
> Service dogs must be accepted.
> 
> Too much of this on the news !


 That's in a long line of things that needs to come to an end, along side with the spotty background checks etc.


----------



## Demon

dumbdriver said:


> as an independent contractor Uber cannot require you to pick up anybody by law if you are terminated for not picking them up you will sue them and win many drivers have already sold them and collected their money there's a lot of things they're not telling us they don't own your car they don't . they have gone to several different courts around the United States telling judges they have no drivers they have no cars there for they have no liability so they need to tell us nothing


You just can't deny them service based on their disability.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

This is soooo avoidable.
Pax with service animals should be told to txt or call the driver with that info as soon as a driver accepts the ride and make sure they are ok with the animal. (some drivers have a disability, too - allergies, fear of dogs, etc.). The Uber rider app should notify the driver that the pax has a service animal - the same way it lets' pax's know the driver is hearing impaired.

If I don't want the ride I'll help the pax get another driver who is happy to accommodate them.


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> This is soooo avoidable.
> Pax with service animals should be told to txt or call the driver with that info as soon as a driver accepts the ride and make sure they are ok with the animal. (some drivers have a disability, too - allergies, fear of dogs, etc.). If I don't want the ride I'll help the pax get another driver who is happy to accommodate them.


That's one of the most illegal things anyone in any of these threads have ever written.

If any driver has allergies that severe to dogs they would have submitted that medical paperwork to Uber and have that medical paperwork on them at all times. And let's be honest, if someone is that allergic to dogs they shouldn't be driving for hire.

All drivers have already agreed to have service animals in their car. If you don't want service animals in your car don't drive for Uber/Lyft, it's that simple.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> This is soooo avoidable.
> Pax with service animals should be told to txt or call the driver with that info as soon as a driver accepts the ride and make sure they are ok with the animal. (some drivers have a disability, too - allergies, fear of dogs, etc.). The Uber rider app should notify the driver that the pax has a service animal - the same way it lets' pax's know the driver is hearing impaired.
> 
> If I don't want the ride I'll help the pax get another driver who is happy to accommodate them.


That opens the door for discrimination though. It gives drivers the option to discriminate against people with disabilities. The whole point of the ADA is to make sure they have equal rights and access.

Allergies and fear are not valid excuses to deny service based on the law.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> That's one of the most illegal things anyone in any of these threads have ever written.


Yeah - god forbid common sense and courtesy should apply when instead you can make something a legal issue.

And, fyi: The ADA is administred by the EEOC div of the Dep't of Labor. EEOC regulations apply to companies - not individuals. As of right now, TNC drivers are not covered under EEOC regulations.
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/adahandbook.cfm



EcoboostMKS said:


> That opens the door for discrimination though. It gives drivers the option to discriminate against people with disabilities. The whole point of the ADA is to make sure they have equal rights and access.
> Allergies and fear are not valid excuses to deny service based on the law.


You're incorrect - legitimate allergies and phobias are just as 'real' as other disabilities.
Your disability does not trump mine.
Your right to access to service ends where my rights begin.


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yeah - god forbid common sense and courtesy should apply when instead you can make something a legal issue.
> 
> You're incorrect - legitimate allergies and phobias are just as 'real' as other disabilities.
> Your disability does not trump mine.
> Your right to access to service ends where my rights begin.


It's courteous to deny a ride to someone on the grounds that they're disabled?? I'm going to disagree with you there.

You're not allergic to dogs in any way that would prevent you from doing your job.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> It's courteous to deny a ride to someone on the grounds that they're disabled?? I'm going to disagree with you there.
> 
> You're not allergic to dogs in any way that would prevent you from doing your job.


Spoken like someone with zero knowledge of or experience with allergies. Well done.

Try driving with your eyes swelled shut.


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Spoken like someone with zero knowledge of or experience with allergies. Well done.
> 
> Try driving with your eyes swelled shut.


Let's see your medical paperwork.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> Let's see your medical paperwork.


That's when you know someone has no legitimate argument or facts: when they make it personal.
I have no problem picking up people with service animals (and generally prefer them over 'regular' riders).
This isn't about me. It's about equal rights under the law.


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's when you know someone has no legitimate argument or facts: when they make it personal.
> I have no problem picking up people with service animals (and generally prefer them over 'regular' riders).
> This isn't about me. It's about equal rights under the law.


Correct, it is about equal rights under the law, which you seem very opposed to. A person with a disability should have the same legal access to a public accommodation as anyone else. I'll again state, if a person has an allergy to dogs that is so severe they can't drive, they have medical paperwork to prove it and wouldn't be required to accept a service animal in their vehicle.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're incorrect - legitimate allergies and phobias are just as 'real' as other disabilities.
> Your disability does not trump mine.
> Your right to access to service ends where my rights begin.


No, I'm correct. They do trump yours according to federal law. At least when it comes to service dogs and access.

"Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals"

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


----------



## cannonball7

I am allergic to stupidity. As usual Uber hangs the "partner" out to...






Is Hang Me Out To Dry and Hang Me Up To Dry the same expression?

Regardless, I find all this banter interesting.

Rhetorical question:

Guess what Uber will do when a "partner" gets bit?
Hint: Uber is fresh out of Uber branded band-aids.


----------



## painfreepc

I would like to know is there any point for a request to transport passengers and their service animals becomes absolutely ridiculous,

Let's take the following scenario for example,

You get a ping and then a phone call,

Hello I have for big service animal dogs and four full-size adults and Luggage we're going to the airport what's your ETA,

WTF..


----------



## EcoboostMKS

painfreepc said:


> I would like to know is there any point for a request to transport passengers and their service animals becomes absolutely ridiculous,
> 
> Let's take the following scenario for example,
> 
> You get a ping and then a phone call,
> 
> Hello I have for big service animal dogs and for full-size adults and Luggage we're going to the airport what's your ETA,
> 
> WTF..


Would you deny access if the same person called and said they had everything but the service animal?

Are there dog restraint laws in your state?


----------



## Demon

cannonball7 said:


> I am allergic to stupidity. As usual Uber hangs the "partner" out to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Hang Me Out To Dry and Hang Me Up To Dry the same expression?
> 
> Regardless, I find all this banter interesting.


I'm going to disagree with you & I hate Uber. Uber makes clear that you have to follow ADA laws.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

END THE MYTHS
The ADA does not require that all private places and a services must be accessible to those with disabilities.
The ADA does not guarantee that everyone with a disability will have access to every private business or service.

The ADA does require that all public facilities and private companies and employers make "reasonable accommodation" for those with disabilities.
The ADA also recognizes and outlines what constitutes an "undue hardship" on a company or business in making a "reasonable accommodation".


----------



## cannonball7

Demon said:


> I'm going to disagree with you & I hate Uber. Uber makes clear that you have to follow ADA laws.


I am allergic to Demon.

Uber say this, Uber say that.

Pssshht. YUP.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> END THE MYTHS
> The ADA does not require that all private places and a services must be accessible to those with disabilities.
> The ADA does not guarantee that everyone with a disability will have access to every private business or service.
> 
> The ADA does require that all public facilities and private companies and employers make "reasonable accommodation" for those with disabilities.
> 
> The ADA also recognizes and outlines what constitutes an "undue hardship" on a company or business in making a "reasonable accommodation".


Uber is not private. They're open to the public. Your tax status as an independent contractor doesn't change that.


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> END THE MYTHS
> The ADA does not require that all private places and a services must be accessible to those with disabilities.
> The ADA does not guarantee that everyone with a disability will have access to every private business or service.
> 
> The ADA does require that all public facilities and private companies and employers make "reasonable accommodation" for those with disabilities.
> 
> The ADA also recognizes and outlines what constitutes an "undue hardship" on a company or business in making a "reasonable accommodation".


Uber/Lyft drivers are a public accommodation.


----------



## Driving and Driven

Uber should make it a part of their process to ask new potential drivers if they have any reason, medical or otherwise, which would not allow them to transport guide or medical assist animals. If they do, it's a dis-qualifier. If they don't, they are made to sign a statement saying they understand taking guide and service animals is required by law.

Don't apply for jobs for which you are not medically qualified or to which you have opposing beliefs. If you can't swim, don't apply to be a lifeguard. If you're a vegan, don't apply for chef in a steak house. Life is too short. There are millions of jobs out there. Find something else you can get behind and enjoy.

Anyone who drives for a ride-share company may eventually be put in a predicament where they are required to transport a service animal. Whether you are a contractor or an hourly employee has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's required by federal law in this country.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

EcoboostMKS said:


> No, I'm correct. They do trump yours according to federal law. At least when it comes to service dogs and access.
> "Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals"
> https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm


Try reading the ENTIRE paragraph:
"When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, *they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different location*s within the room or different rooms in the facility."


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Try reading the ENTIRE paragraph:
> "When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, *they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different location*s within the room or different rooms in the facility."


That's your personal opinion and not the law.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

EcoboostMKS said:


> Uber is not private. They're open to the public. Your tax status as an independent contractor doesn't change that.


Uber is NOT (yet) an employer of drivers.
Drivers are (so far) independent contractors.

But that's besides the point: It is a myth that every INDIVIDUAL must accommodate every individual with a disability.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Try reading the ENTIRE paragraph:
> "When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, *they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different location*s within the room or different rooms in the facility."


Unfortunately, your car is not a classroom where this is an option. And denying service because of allergies or fear is not an option, so where does that put you?


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber is NOT (yet) an employer of drivers.
> Drivers are (so far) independent contractors.
> 
> But that's besides the point: It is a myth that every INDIVIDUAL must accommodate every individual with a disability.


The law doesn't ask every individual to accommodate every other individual and no one in this thread has made that claim.


----------



## painfreepc

EcoboostMKS said:


> Would you deny access if the same person called and said they had everything but the service animal?
> 
> Are there dog restraint laws in your state?


I would not take four full-size adults with luggage to the airport in my Ford Fusion,

the battery in the trunk reduces storage space, in case of the service dogs where is four dogs going to sit with four full size adults, including me that makes 5 adults and for dogs..


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber is NOT (yet) an employer of drivers.
> Drivers are (so far) independent contractors.
> 
> But that's besides the point: It is a myth that every INDIVIDUAL must accommodate every individual with a disability.


Once again, your tax status does not make you a private entity. You're open to the public as an uber driver.


----------



## cannonball7

Demon said:


> That's your personal opinion and not the law.


When can I get a ride on your motorcycle? Is the motorcycle ADA compliant? I have IBD.


----------



## Demon

cannonball7 said:


> When can I get a ride on your motorcycle? Is the motorcycle ADA compliant? I have IBD.


My motorcycle is not a public accommodation. You're making all of your arguments based on your


----------



## EcoboostMKS

painfreepc said:


> I would not take four full-size adults with luggage to the airport in my Ford Fusion,
> 
> the battery in the trunk reduces storage space, in case of the service dogs where is four dogs going to sit with four full size adults, including me that makes 5 adults and for dogs..


That specific situation is a tough situation. I'd hope the person in that situation would request a bigger car. The whole point of the ADA is for someone to be treated and given access like that dog wasn't there. Common sense should play a role when it comes to safety though. Sticking that many people, that much luggage, and an animal might be a judgement call. I'd hope you'd do everything you could to reasonably make the situation work and safely, but sometimes that isn't possible.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Demon said:


> My motorcycle is not a public accommodation. You're making all of your arguments based on your.


Seems like there's a lot of that going on in these type of threads.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> That's your personal opinion and not the law.


That's nonsense.
For all of the bluster in the press and media not one TNC driver has ever been held liable under ADA regulations for not providing service to someone with a disability. Uber is involved in lawsuits - but not drivers.

Good article here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/21/uber-disability-laws-don-t-apply-to-us.html


----------



## painfreepc

painfreepc said:


> I would not take four





cannonball7 said:


> When can I get a ride on your motorcycle? Is the motorcycle ADA compliant? I have IBD.


God I love that movie so much it's a classic,
the new Judge Dredd movie is damn good too almost makes me wish I had a shot of slow mo..


----------



## cannonball7

Demon said:


> My motorcycle is not a public accommodation. You're making all of your arguments based on your .


Yawn, yup. My street smarts

"You're making all of your arguments based on

I bet you $1,000.00 that if a driver accepts a so called "service" animal, when in reality it is a dim witted ruse to get the passenger's pet dog in the car, and said driver is bitten and it is reported that *Uber will deactivate the driver.
*
And don't dismiss or label my confidence, silly.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's nonsense.
> For all of the bluster in the press and media not one TNC driver has ever been held liable under ADA regulations for not providing service to someone with a disability. Uber is involved in lawsuits - but not drivers.
> 
> Good article here:
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/21/uber-disability-laws-don-t-apply-to-us.html


The driver gets arrested and the company gets sued. If you were filing a lawsuit, would you go after the guy making $8 an hour or the company worth $50 billion?


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's nonsense.
> For all of the bluster in the press and media not one TNC driver has ever been held liable under ADA regulations for not providing service to someone with a disability. Uber is involved in lawsuits - but not drivers.
> 
> Good article here:
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/21/uber-disability-laws-don-t-apply-to-us.html


A better article here.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article88139382.html


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

EcoboostMKS said:


> Once again, your tax status does not make you a private entity. You're open to the public as an uber driver.


Under the ADA, as an individual service provider, you are not required to make an* unreasonable accommodation*.
If you believe differently, cite even a single case in which an individual TNC driver with a legitimate reason for denying service has been held legally liable for failing to meet the requirements of the ADA.


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Under the ADA, as an individual service provider,you are not required to make any unreasonable accommodation.
> If you believe differently, cite even a single case in which an individual TNC driver with a legitimate reason for denying service has been held legally liable for failing to meet the requirements of the ADA.


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article88139382.html


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> A better article here.
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article88139382.html


A "better article"? LOL!
That driver, apparently, had no legitimate reason for denying the ride - and was also charged with battery.
Let us know if there is a conviction on federal charges of violating the ADA.


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> A "better article"? LOL!
> That driver, apparently, had no legitimate reason for denying the ride - and was also charged with battery.
> Let us know if there is a conviction on federal charges of violating the ADA.


So "legitimate" is just whatever you decide it to be?

For the third time, the only legal reason for denying someone with a service animal is if the driver has medical paperwork on hand and submitted to Uber/Lyft showing their allergy is so severe they couldn't operate the vehicle.

The end.


----------



## cannonball7

Demon said:


> It's still yours. Glad I could clear that up for you.


When ever you speak, my allergy flares up. So quite the contrary.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Under the ADA, as an individual service provider, you are not required to make an* unreasonable accommodation*.
> If you believe differently, cite even a single case in which an individual TNC driver with a legitimate reason for denying service has been held legally liable for failing to meet the requirements of the ADA.


What would you consider an "unreasonable accommodation" in the case of an uber driver and passenger?

And keep in mind that the law clearly states fear and allergies are not valid excuses for denial of service.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> So "legitimate" is just whatever you decide it to be?
> 
> For the third time, the only legal reason for denying someone with a service animal is if the driver has medical paperwork on hand and submitted to Uber/Lyft showing their allergy is so severe they couldn't operate the vehicle.
> 
> The end.


Legitimate means legitimate - and is recognized by ADA.
For the last time, stop making things up and posting them as fact.



EcoboostMKS said:


> What would you consider an "unreasonable accommodation" in the case of an uber driver and passenger?


Not sure that my personal opinion matters, but...
1) If I cannot transport someone safely
2) If my vehicle is not large enough to accommodate everyone and everything required for the ride.
That's about it for me... I don't have any allergies or phobias that would prevent me from accommodating any situation that I can foresee.


> And keep in mind that the law clearly states fear and allergies are not valid excuses for denial of service.


Try reading the ENTIRE paragraph:
_"When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, *they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different location*s within the room or different rooms in the facility."_​
In other words: help them order another car/driver.

It is disingenuous of you to keep citing one sentence out of context - while ignoring the whole paragraph, and the intent of the law. Oh, that's right... it contradicts your opinion.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> Uber/Lyft drivers are a public accommodation.


That was never determined in a court of law, the NFB case would have nailed it down but Uber settled it out of court so it never was heard before a judge. The ADA applies to Uber itself, the regulations clearly state that they cannot contract away their responsibility to comply. Google DOJ Statement of Interest Uber and read it for yourself, or search here on uberpeople, there is a thread about when is a taxi not a taxi, contains a pdf of the SOI from the DOJ. Interestingly the DOJ stance is that it matters not whether they are or aren't a public accomodation but whether Uber is operating a Demand Responsive Transportation System. The whole public accomodation defense is a moot point, Uber tried to use it as a defense and the DOJ shot them down.

C. PLAINTIFFS NEED NOT SHOW THAT UBER IS A PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION TO SUCCEED ON THEIR CLAIM UNDER § 12184 Private entities primarily engaged in providing transportation services are covered by § 12184 of Title III, irrespective of whether they are also public accommodations. Section 12182, in contrast, sets out statutory requirements applicable only to "public accommodations." Section 12182 includes general and specific prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.5 5 Section 12182 also includes specific prohibitions addressing discrimination in the provision of certain types of transportation services operated by private entities that are not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b). 42 U.S.C. § 12182. Sections 12182

It would be a stretch to say a part-time Uber driver is 'primarily engaged in providing transportation services', you know who is though, Uber.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> Uber is not private. They're open to the public. Your tax status as an independent contractor doesn't change that.


Key word here being Uber, not the drivers. Tax Status has nothing to do with it. Show us the part of the ADA that applies to Independent Contractors and says that they, not the company that contracts them, are required to comply. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. The requirement to comply does not pass through the company down to its contractors, it is solely the companies responsibility to ensure compliance by its contractors. This is why Uber created the Service Animal Policy which you agree to under penalty of deactivation.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Can we please keep the ethical side out of the discussion? I'm sure everyone here feels that if they are capable they should allow blind people and their animals into their car. This is a discussion more about the legality of the issue and not of whether you should or shouldn't do it. Very few people here are out to deny people rides just to be mean or spiteful. Lets try to have a meaningful and intelligent (as much as possible) discussion about it, OK?


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Try reading the ENTIRE paragraph:
> _"When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, *they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different location*s within the room or different rooms in the facility."_​
> In other words: help them order another car/driver.
> 
> It is disingenuous of you to keep citing one sentence out of context - while ignoring the whole paragraph, and the intent of the law. Oh, that's right... it contradicts your opinion.


How do you help someone order another car? They already ordered one and, in this situation, are being denied access. I get how this would apply in a room type setting where it's easier to separate, but not in a driver/car setting. There is no reasonable way to accommodate without denying access.

What do you do if the rider is in a rush and can't wait? What happens if the next driver happens to be allergic or fearful of dogs? They keep getting passed down the line because they have medical equipment with them? That's discrimination.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> Key word here being Uber, not the drivers. Tax Status has nothing to do with it. Show us the part of the ADA that applies to Independent Contractors and says that they, not the company that contracts them, are required to comply. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. The requirement to comply does not pass through the company down to its contractors, it is solely the companies responsibility to ensure compliance by its contractors. This is why Uber created the Service Animal Policy which you agree to under penalty of deactivation.


There is no part of the ADA that applies to independent contractors because they are required to comply just like the company is required to comply. The requirement to comply absolutely passes through to the company's independent contractors. If it didn't, it would specifically say that they are not required to comply. Uber might have a specific policy in place, but it's in regards to laws that are already in place.

Licensed taxi cab drivers are typically independent contractors too. Do you think they're not required to take service dogs too by law? The same laws apply to you that apply to them that apply to uber. Break the law and you could be facing more than just deactivation.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> How do you help someone order another car? They already ordered one and, in this situation, and are being denied access. I get how this would apply in a room type setting where it's easier to separate, but not in a driver/car setting. There is no reasonable way to accommodate without denying access.
> 
> What do you do if the rider is in a rush and can't wait? What happens if the next driver happens to be allergic or fearful of dogs? They keep getting passed down the line because they have medical equipment with them?


A blind guy in a rush, good one.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> A blind guy in a rush, good one.


Huh? Blind people don't have appointments? And not all people in need of service animals are blind.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> There is no part of the ADA that applies to independent contractors because they are required to comply just like the company is required to comply. The requirement to comply absolutely passes through to the company's independent contractors. If it didn't, it would specifically say that they are not required to comply. Uber might have a specific policy in place, but it's in regards to laws that are already in place.
> 
> Licensed taxi cab drivers are typically independent contractors too. Do you think they're not required to take service dogs too by law? The same laws apply to you that apply to them that apply to uber. Break the law and you could be facing more than just deactivation.


So you are now more authoritative than the U.S. Department of Justice? Here is a piece from the Statement of Interest from the Uber v NFB case.

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


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

EcoboostMKS said:


> How do you help someone order another car? They already ordered one and, in this situation, are being denied access. I get how this would apply in a room type setting where it's easier to separate, but not in a driver/car setting. There is no reasonable way to accommodate without denying access.


Really? You can't possibly imagine explaining to someone how to request a different driver through the app?


> What do you do if the rider is in a rush and can't wait? What happens if the next driver happens to be allergic or fearful of dogs? They keep getting passed down the line because they have medical equipment with them? That's discrimination.


That's called 'life'. Being "in a rush" is something a pax has to take into account - not the driver.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


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


What's the point of that paragraph? That a private technology company can operate a transportation company with independent contractors and still has to follow federal ADA laws? So both the company and the independent contractor are responsible to follow ADA regulations. What's your point? Where does it say the private company is solely responsible for following those laws and independent contractors are exempt?


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Really? You can't possibly imagine explaining to someone how to request a different driver through the app?
> 
> That's called 'life'. Being "in a rush" is something a pax has to take into account - not the driver.


That's denying access though which is against the law. You might be doing it in a nice way, but you're still denying access because of the service animal.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

EcoboostMKS said:


> That's denying access though which is against the law.


No, it's not. You keep ignoring the wording of the ADA: "reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship" as if they are not part of the law.


Papa Sarducci said:


> One could also view the World as a facility and individual cars as rooms within that facility.


And THAT is the point: If one vehicle/driver can not accommodate, there are others that can and will. That is called "reasonable accommodation" without "undue hardship"


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> And THAT is the point: If one vehicle/driver can not accommodate, there are others that can and will. That is called "reasonable accommodation" without "undue hardship"


It's reasonable to whom? Doesn't seem that reasonable to the ten year old blind girl that this thread is about.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

EcoboostMKS said:


> It's reasonable to whom? Doesn't seem that reasonable to the ten year old blind girl that this thread is about.


I admit that we might be better off with 10 year olds writing our laws and adjudicating our court cases.
But we currently have adults who do that. (and the regulation's official guidelines provide examples of reasonable accommodations).


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> What's the point of that paragraph? That a private technology company can operate a transportation company with independent contractors and still has to follow federal ADA laws? So both the company and the independent contractor are responsible to follow ADA regulations. What's your point? Where does it say the private company is solely responsible for following those laws and independent contractors are exempt?


It doesn't say anyone is exempt, the point is that the law applies to Uber, not the contractors, the contractors must abide by Uber company policy set forth in the agreement between Uber and its contractor. Ultimately it is on Uber to ensure that its contractors follow the ADA regulations but those regulations do not directly apply to the contractors themselves. Yes, you must comply with the regulations or be deactivated but that is by Uber policy. Uber is the company providing the demand responsive transportation system and also the one who is 'primarily engaged in the transporting of passengers for a fee'. The independent contractors provide that service but as the LAW indicates, Uber cannot contract away its responsibility to comply.


----------



## Chicago88

I'm loving all the dime store lawyers on this thread... both sides of this augment are filled with idiots, you know who you are - typically your post include words like idiot, clueless, federal law, etc.... From a self admitted idiot.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

observer said:


> http://www.12news.com/mb/news/natio...-teacher-denied-ride-by-uber-driver/279801750


Uber really needs to provide training for its partners.

And there is really no excuse for them not to, they are collecting enough in commish that they should be able to get the people in so they are well informed as to their legal status and the requirements to provide this kind of transportation


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> It doesn't say anyone is exempt, the point is that the law applies to Uber, not the contractors, the contractors must abide by Uber company policy set forth in the agreement between Uber and its contractor. Ultimately it is on Uber to ensure that its contractors follow the ADA regulations but those regulations do not directly apply to the contractors themselves. Yes, you must comply with the regulations or be deactivated but that is by Uber policy. Uber is the company providing the demand responsive transportation system and also the one who is 'primarily engaged in the transporting of passengers for a fee'. The independent contractors provide that service but as the LAW indicates, Uber cannot contract away its responsibility to comply.


Ok, so again, what's your point?

The paragraph you posted was just showing that uber (the company) is liable for what it's drivers do. Can you blame a lawyer for going after them instead of the specific drivers? Someone is suing and this shows uber, the $50 billion dollar company, is just as responsible as the individual drivers making around minimum wage. Not really sure how this applies to being discussed here.

Do you think if uber didn't specifically have a policy with it's drivers to take service animals that they wouldn't have to? Is that what you're trying to say?


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I admit that we might be better off with 10 year olds writing our laws and adjudicating our court cases.
> But we currently have adults who do that. (and the regulation's official guidelines provide examples of reasonable accommodations).


It provides an example for a room setting. The two parties stay in the same room, but different sides. This doesn't relate to a car setting though and there are no examples for a car setting. You could make assumptions to what that means if you want, but you're putting yourself at risk for deactivation or other consequences. And once a precedent is set, I'd hope people wouldn't take advantage just because they don't want dog hair in their car, but of course they would.


----------



## SomeDrivingGuy

This lady is an ass. Brought all this drama instead of ordering another uber.

These types of people are too common and are THE problem. The ones that'll yell at a cashier for pickles on their Burger, the ones that complain to management over a few cents, the type that argue over anything. 

The kid being blind is no valid reason to take it this far either. Of course they try to bring much pity on the victims. I'm sure the blind girl or dog didn't even care or notice any time was wasted. Now they're about to take a portion of his life and his mind.


----------



## autofill

I don't see why uber cannot charge an extra fee for service animal pickup but they charge an extra $8 for pax who request a driver with car seat for a baby.

Best solution to this problem is to have drivers sign up for accepting service animal and charge an extra fee. This way pax will never have to deal with a potential driver that might not want to take a dog. 

Like they can request UberX + service dog, uberXL + service dog, etc..


----------



## EcoboostMKS

autofill said:


> I don't see why uber cannot charge an extra fee for service animal pickup but they charge an extra $8 for pax who request a driver with car seat.


Because one is against the law and the other isn't.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

SomeDrivingGuy said:


> This lady is an ass. Brought all this drama instead of ordering another uber.
> 
> These types of people are too common and are THE problem. The ones that'll yell at a cashier for pickles on their Burger, the ones that complain to management over a few cents, the type that argue over anything.
> 
> The kid being blind is no valid reason to take it this far either. Of course they try to bring much pity on the victims. I'm sure the blind girl or dog didn't even care or notice any time was wasted. Now they're about to take a portion of his life and his mind.


Ugh i hate those blind kids too. They actually have the nerve to want to be treated like anyone else.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

Michael - Cleveland said:


> This is soooo avoidable.
> Pax with service animals should be told to txt or call the driver with that info as soon as a driver accepts the ride and make sure they are ok with the animal. (some drivers have a disability, too - allergies, fear of dogs, etc.). The Uber rider app should notify the driver that the pax has a service animal - the same way it lets' pax's know the driver is hearing impaired.
> 
> If I don't want the ride I'll help the pax get another driver who is happy to accommodate them.


So you want a seperate but equal fleet of Ubers that will allow service animals?


----------



## autofill

EcoboostMKS said:


> Because one is against the law and the other isn't.


So you saying drivers can deny taking pax with baby even if they have baby seat?


----------



## Frontier Guy

autofill said:


> So you saying drivers can deny taking pax with baby even if they have baby seat?


I hate baby poop and vomit on my seats

Actually, I will deny a ride to someone without a car seat


----------



## EcoboostMKS

autofill said:


> So you saying drivers can deny taking pax with baby even if they have baby seat?


Is it illegal to? Probably not, but i'm not a lawyer. It could probably get you deactivated, but it's most likely not illegal. It is illegal to not take a service animal.

But that's not what you asked. You asked why uber can charge extra for one and not the other. The ADA makes it illegal to treat someone with a service animal differently, under normal circumstances, than anyone else. The ADA doesn't protect people with babies.


----------



## Frontier Guy

EcoboostMKS said:


> Is it illegal to? Probably not, but i'm not a lawyer. It could get you deactivated. It is illegal to not take a service animal.
> 
> But that's not what you asked. You asked why uber can charge extra for one and not the other. The ADA makes it illegal to treat someone with a service animal differently, under normal circumstances, than anyone else. The ADA doesn't protect people with babies.


A baby is a choice, a disability is not


----------



## autofill

Frontier Guy said:


> A baby is a choice, a disability is not


If a baby is a choice and disability is not then a service dog is a choice.


----------



## Frontier Guy

autofill said:


> If a baby is a choice and disability is not then a service dog is a choice.


depends on the disability and person, I have a friend that is 100% blind, not even blurry, without his dog, he would curl up in a corner and never leave. Neighbor suffers horrific PTSD from 4 tours in Iraq/Afghanistan, his dog never leaves his side, he can't go anywhere without her, and I would never think to ask him to. My ex has severe epilepsy, she qualifies for a dog, but refuses one, but she almost never leaves the house and has a home helper 24/7.


----------



## autofill

EcoboostMKS said:


> The ADA makes it illegal to treat someone with a service animal differently, under normal circumstances, than anyone else. The ADA doesn't protect people with babies.


It's okay that a disabled person should never be mistreated but they should not get special treatment. Drivers shouldn't have to make special treatment by requiring to accept a service animal over a baby. That's just wrong in every way in society.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

autofill said:


> It's okay that a disabled person should never be mistreated but they should not get special treatment. Drivers shouldn't have to make special treatment by requiring to accept a service animal over a baby. That's just wrong in every way in society.


What are you talking about? Special treatment? These aren't pets here. These are working animals that people need to get through their every day life.

Would you consider it "special treatment" if someone brought their oxygen tank, insulin, or inhaler along with them for a ride? Do you think there should be a surcharge for those things too?


----------



## EcoboostMKS

autofill said:


> If a baby is a choice and disability is not then a service dog is a choice.


Is a wheel chair a choice?


----------



## KekeLo

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Spoken like someone with zero knowledge of or experience with allergies. Well done.
> 
> Try driving with your eyes swelled shut.


Exactly. This is what happens to me when I'm around dogs. My eyes swell up, and I can't breath.


----------



## Chicago88

It's no wonder we're all Uber drivers... the amount of rationale in this thread could fill a thimble.... 1/2 way.


----------



## autofill

EcoboostMKS said:


> What are you talking about? Special treatment? These aren't pets here. These are working animals that people need to get through their every day life.
> 
> Would you consider it "special treatment" if someone brought their oxygen tank, insulin, or inhaler along with them for a ride? Do you think there should be a surcharge for those things too?


What I meant was it's not right that a driver can deny service to regular pax but when they deny service to a disabled pax, they get deactivated. That's special treatment.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

autofill said:


> What I meant was it's not right that a driver can deny service to regular pax but when they deny service to a disabled pax, they get deactivated. That's special treatment.


Why would you deny service to a regular passenger though? Assuming they weren't drunk or threatening in any way where it's obvious why you'd deny service, why would anyone deny service for no reason? And if you did, wouldn't uber discipline you for it if they complained?

When you deny someone service specifically because of their service dog, it's against the law. Would you turn down that same customer, in the same situation, if they didn't have a service dog? If you wouldn't, it's discrimination. This isn't just an uber policy you'd be breaking and that's why it's different.


----------



## autofill

EcoboostMKS said:


> Why would you deny service to a regular passenger though? Assuming they weren't drunk or threatening in any way where it's obvious why you'd deny service, why would anyone deny service for no reason? And if you did, wouldn't uber discipline you for it if they complained?
> 
> When you deny someone service specifically because of their service dog, it's against the law. Would you turn down that same customer, in the same situation, if they didn't have a service dog? If you wouldn't, it's discrimination. This isn't just an uber policy you'd be breaking and that's why it's different.


I guess you too good and never cancel a trip request.


----------



## 75drive

dumbdriver said:


> as an independent contractor Uber cannot require you to pick up anybody by law if you are terminated for not picking them up you will sue them and win many drivers have already sold them and collected their money there's a lot of things they're not telling us they don't own your car they don't . they have gone to several different courts around the United States telling judges they have no drivers they have no cars there for they have no liability so they need to tell us nothing


First of all what kind of person would deny a ride to a blind person and the animal they depend on to keep them safe and navigate the world in complete darkness? My answer is a real ****ing asshole! Second you apparently don't know shit about the law! It is against the law to discriminate against those with disabilities including service animals. You don't get a choice it's the law! Furthermore you signed a contract with Uber! I'm guessing you have not read it but you can be deactivated for violation of the terms!


----------



## Euius

Frontier Guy said:


> Neighbor suffers horrific PTSD from 4 tours in Iraq/Afghanistan, his dog never leaves his side, he can't go anywhere without her, and I would never think to ask him to.


Note that "emotional support dogs" are not protected by the ADA and can be refused by all drivers.

https://adata.org/publication/service-animals-booklet

An animal must have specific training to perform tasks to qualify.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

You millenials don't remember the days before the ADA.

Before the ADA was passed during the first Bush administration, handicap accessible bathrooms were rare, because they're more expensive to build, so most business didn't have them.

After the ADA, business no longer had a choice. They are now mandated to build more expensive bathrooms, whether they want to or not.

There are lots of things that businesses have to do because of local, state, and federal laws.


----------



## Cctx61

dumbdriver said:


> as an independent contractor Uber cannot require you to pick up anybody by law if you are terminated for not picking them up you will sue them and win many drivers have already sold them and collected their money there's a lot of things they're not telling us they don't own your car they don't . they have gone to several different courts around the United States telling judges they have no drivers they have no cars there for they have no liability so they need to tell us nothing


Uber cannot require you to do anything but as a contractor they do not have to continue the contract if you do not do what you agreed to. You can sue but will lose. Not only did this driver break his contract he also broke the law.


----------



## Euius

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> You millenials don't remember the days before the ADA.


I do, but that's irrelevant. The ADA hasn't kept up with reasonableness.

Specifically, the inability to require that people provide proof that their animal is a support dog has led to the current idiocy where every time I go to a restaurant or a movie, there are two or three lap dogs in the place. Every single time. These aren't support dogs, just whiny people who want their dog with them at all times.

Because customers cry "support dog!" and common sense that a lap dog isn't providing any service can't legally be used.

The business can ask "what task" they are trained to perform, but the customer was already lying about the support dog status and they just lie again. Once the person _claims_ they perform a task, that's all that can be asked. It can't be verified, and even if it could no penalty is applied to the dishonest.

I'm going to start claiming that my bulldog is trained to support me by engaging in the task of killing people with lapdogs, so I don't have to.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Frontier Guy said:


> A baby is a choice, a disability is not


Oh great, now this thread has veered off into a right to life discussion.

On a similar note, when does a trip become a trip? Is it the moment you accept the ping? Or is it when you swipe Start Trip? If you cancel before swiping Start it is as if the ride never existed. It doesn't show up in your trip records and has no trip no. or waybill.

If there was no trip then nobody was denied service.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

EcoboostMKS said:


> How do you help someone order another car? They already ordered one and, in this situation, are being denied access. I get how this would apply in a room type setting where it's easier to separate, but not in a driver/car setting. There is no reasonable way to accommodate without denying access.
> 
> What do you do if the rider is in a rush and can't wait? What happens if the next driver happens to be allergic or fearful of dogs? They keep getting passed down the line because they have medical equipment with them? That's discrimination.


Agreed. How is it different from them being told "I'm afraid of dogs. Catch the NEXT bus."?


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Euius said:


> Note that "emotional support dogs" are not protected by the ADA and can be refused by all drivers.
> 
> https://adata.org/publication/service-animals-booklet
> 
> An animal must have specific training to perform tasks to qualify.


"calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack" is clearly listed as a qualifying service animal. You cannot group it into the exclusion of "comfort or emotional support" that you are allowed to deny. If you suspect the dog is merely a "comfort or emotional support" animal you would only be allowed to ask what it is trained to do. If "PTSD" or even "anxiety attack" gets mentioned, you must accept the dog.
The law only recognizes dogs and in limited cases, miniature horses as service animals.


----------



## JoeD16

I picked up a blind lady with a service dog in Cleveland who had been turned down twice because of her dog and the fact that it was snowy and slushy outside. I moved the seat up and the dog sat on the floor in the back without any problems whatsoever. Service dogs are trained that when they're working that they're not jumping around crazy.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

JoeD16 said:


> I picked up a blind lady with a service dog in Cleveland who had been turned down twice because of her dog and the fact that it was snowy and slushy outside. I moved the seat up and the dog sat on the floor in the back without any problems whatsoever. Service dogs are trained that when they're working that they're not jumping around crazy.


Even non-service dogs can be well-trained and behaved. I remember picking up a family in Spring Hill in my cab with their pit bull who remained quiet during the entire trip.


----------



## Euius

Tim In Cleveland said:


> "calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack" is clearly listed as a qualifying service animal.


No, it's not. The quote is, "or turning on lights for persons with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder"

You can't just keep the dog with you because it calms you down. It *must perform a task.*


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Euius said:


> No, it's not. The quote is, "or turning on lights for persons with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder"
> 
> You can't just keep the dog with you because it calms you down. It *must perform a task.*


WTF are you quoting? Why mis-inform people on this forum? From https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm (The actual law, not your "interpretation" of it):
*Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities.* Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

cannonball7 said:


> Guess what Uber will do when a "partner" gets bit?
> Hint: Uber is fresh out of Uber branded band-aids.


Oh, please. 
You're more likely to have a pax bite you than a service dog.
In any case:
"In the US, the ADA permits the exclusion from public accommodations of any dog that behaves in a dangerous or threatening manner, and this would certainly include biting, or threatening to bite."


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> That's your personal opinion and not the law.


uh, no. That is a direct quote from the Dept of Labor EEOC division. 
It IS the law.


----------



## Disgusted Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yeah - god forbid common sense and courtesy should apply when instead you can make something a legal issue.
> 
> And, fyi: The ADA is administred by the EEOC div of the Dep't of Labor. EEOC regulations apply to companies - not individuals. As of right now, TNC drivers are not covered under EEOC regulations.
> https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/adahandbook.cfm
> 
> You're incorrect - legitimate allergies and phobias are just as 'real' as other disabilities.
> Your disability does not trump mine.
> Your right to access to service ends where my rights begin.


Michael - Cleveland Please stop practicing law if you don't have a license. You are wrong, dead wrong. The examples you give are incorrect, your interpretations are incorrect. I don't particularly like the law either but it is the LAW and it does cover you when you drive for Uber or Lyft.

Your example above, is "a primer for small businesses", it doesn't say that non corporate identities are exempt. Your other example about two competing disabilities covers two different clients of an establishment and does not represent the relationship between service provider and client.

This is the 100th thread about this. I'm tired of looking up the citation of the law and posting it but it is quite clear, you MUST accept the service animal, any b.s you choose to spout here does not change the fact. I wish people would stop spreading this ignorance just because they don't think it's "fair" or threatens their illusion of control. To my knowledge, Washington D.C. is the ONLY jurisdiction that allows a TAXI driver to refuse service to service animals with documentation filed in advance. I don't even know if that applies to Uber and Lyft drivers as well. Rest of the Us, take the dog and quit complaining. If the dog leaves a mess, file for your cleanup fee.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Disgusted Driver said:


> Michael - Cleveland Please stop practicing law if you don't have a license. You are wrong, dead wrong. The examples you give are incorrect, your interpretations are incorrect. I don't particularly like the law either but it is the LAW and it does cover you when you drive for Uber or Lyft.
> 
> Your example above, is "a primer for small businesses", it doesn't say that non corporate identities are exempt. Your other example about two competing disabilities covers two different clients of an establishment and does not represent the relationship between service provider and client.
> 
> This is the 100th thread about this. I'm tired of looking up the citation of the law and posting it but it is quite clear, you MUST accept the service animal, any b.s you choose to spout here does not change the fact. I wish people would stop spreading this ignorance just because they don't think it's "fair" or threatens their illusion of control. To my knowledge, Washington D.C. is the ONLY jurisdiction that allows a TAXI driver to refuse service to service animals with documentation filed in advance. I don't even know if that applies to Uber and Lyft drivers as well. Rest of the Us, take the dog and quit complaining. If the dog leaves a mess, file for your cleanup fee.


I guess we'll wait for a court to decide, but my opinion, as expressed above, is legitimate and valid: TNC drivers do NOT provide "public accommodation". They are independent of the company (Uber/Lyft) and provide "private" service. They cannot pick-up "street hails" the way taxis can. The only people to whom a driver's services are made available are those who have created an account and established a 'membership' with the TNC.

If the TNC is found to be a transportation provider (as opposed to a tech company), then the company can be held liable.

Disagree? Then cite any case that has been fully adjudicated in a court of law, including appeals, that says otherwise.
Until then, I stand by my comments and opinions... and will be happy to change my opinion when and if a court ruling determines something contrary.

So, please continue to post your views -
but kindly, don't tell me what I should or should not post. Thanks.

Now, all that being said:
_In my opinion_, anyone who denies service just because they don't want a dog in their vehicle is a jerk.
Just keep a large towel or blanket in your car if you're concerned about your leather seats or animal hair.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I guess we'll wait for a court to decide, but my opinion, as expressed above, is legitimate and valid: TNC drivers do NOT provide "public accommodation". They are independent of the company (Uber/Lyft) and provide "private" service. They cannot pick-up "street hails" the way taxis can. The only people to whom a driver's services are made available are those who have created an account and established a 'membership' with the TNC.


That's certainly one way to look at things, I'm not sure if it would hold up in every state.

The TNC's are a new idea, breaking new legal ground. I'm sure that Uber would prefer to regulate it all themselves, but I don't see that happening. Over the next several years, I think there will be new rulings all over the place for this


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I guess we'll wait for a court to decide, but my opinion, as expressed above, is legitimate and valid: TNC drivers do NOT provide "public accommodation". They are independent of the company (Uber/Lyft) and provide "private" service. They cannot pick-up "street hails" the way taxis can. The only people to whom a driver's services are made available are those who have created an account and established a 'membership' with the TNC.
> 
> If the TNC is found to be a transportation provider (as opposed to a tech company), then the company can be held liable.
> 
> Disagree? Then cite any case that has been fully adjudicated in a court of law, including appeals, that says otherwise.
> Until then, I stand by my comments and opinions... and will be happy to change my opinion when and if a court ruling determines something contrary.
> 
> So, please continue to post your views -
> but kindly, don't tell me what I should or should not post. Thanks.
> 
> Now, all that being said:
> _In my opinion_, anyone who denies service just because they don't want a dog in their vehicle is a jerk.
> Just keep a large towel or blanket in your car if you're concerned about your leather seats or animal hair.


The other poster pointed out that you're wrong and you're spreading bad information. No matter how many times you post this stuff, it's still going to be wrong. The other thing you need to realize is that we're not discussing opinions, we're discussing facts.

Here's the first area where you're wrong, Uber drivers are a public accommodation. This is spelled out in the ADA guidelines on the following website. https://adata.org/publication/disability-law-handbook#Public Accommodations and the ADA

What makes Uber/Lyft a public accommodations is that anyone over 18 can get the app, open an account and hail a vehicle for hire. It doesn't matter how you hail the driver, what matters is that anyone over 18 can be on the system.

Asking for a court case is poor reasoning. If I ask you to cite me a specific court case that says I can't run into my neighbor's place in the middle of the night if I think aliens are attacking him, and you can't find a court case, that doesn't mean it's legal for me to do that. You also need to consider that just because none of us know of a specific case that deals with vehicles for hire isn't proof that the case exists.

Feel free to continue posting incorrect information, but be prepared to be called out on it. Feel free to continue to post your opinions, but they are not facts.


----------



## Frontier Guy

KekeLo said:


> Exactly. This is what happens to me when I'm around dogs. My eyes swell up, and I can't breath.


Then how are you functioning in society? Do you carry an epi pen 24/7?


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

Disgusted Driver said:


> Michael - Cleveland Please stop practicing law if you don't have a license. You are wrong, dead wrong. The examples you give are incorrect, your interpretations are incorrect. I don't particularly like the law either but it is the LAW and it does cover you when you drive for Uber or Lyft.
> 
> Your example above, is "a primer for small businesses", it doesn't say that non corporate identities are exempt. Your other example about two competing disabilities covers two different clients of an establishment and does not represent the relationship between service provider and client.
> 
> This is the 100th thread about this. I'm tired of looking up the citation of the law and posting it but it is quite clear, you MUST accept the service animal, any b.s you choose to spout here does not change the fact. I wish people would stop spreading this ignorance just because they don't think it's "fair" or threatens their illusion of control. To my knowledge, Washington D.C. is the ONLY jurisdiction that allows a TAXI driver to refuse service to service animals with documentation filed in advance. I don't even know if that applies to Uber and Lyft drivers as well. Rest of the Us, take the dog and quit complaining. If the dog leaves a mess, file for your cleanup fee.


There is no cleanup fee, a service animal has to damage a driver's vehicle twice before anyone can claim a fee per Uber's Service Animal Policy.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I guess we'll wait for a court to decide, but my opinion, as expressed above, is legitimate and valid: TNC drivers do NOT provide "public accommodation". They are independent of the company (Uber/Lyft) and provide "private" service. They cannot pick-up "street hails" the way taxis can. The only people to whom a driver's services are made available are those who have created an account and established a 'membership' with the TNC.


Under no circumstances is uber a private service. Do you have any clue how or what classifies a company as private to government? It has absolutely nothing to do with being able to pick up street hails. Look it up, it's on the FMCSA website. All livery companies have to declare when applying for their authority.

I've got my own limo service. I have all private clients. I don't do street hails. I'm a public livery service in the eyes of the federal government.

The type of nonsense that goes on in these threads is the environment uber has created hiring any schmuck with a car and a phone and turning them into drivers. It's ameteur hour 24/7 with this hack service.

Not directing that directly at you, michael. Just uber and their drivers in general.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Frontier Guy said:


> Then how are you functioning in society? Do you carry an epi pen 24/7?


You'd be surprised at the allergies some people have. I used to work as a welfare caseworker, one of the clientele explained she needed money for pampers because her baby was allergic to cloth.


----------



## KekeLo

Frontier Guy said:


> Then how are you functioning in society? Do you carry an epi pen 24/7?


Because I'm never around dogs. I have to be close to dogs for them to activate my allergies.


----------



## Demon

KekeLo said:


> Because I'm never around dogs. I have to be close to dogs for them to activate my allergies.


You're only allergic to the physical presence of a dog?


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> Under no circumstances is uber a private service. Do you have any clue how or what classifies a company as private to government? It has absolutely nothing to do with being able to pick up street hails. Look it up, it's on the FMCSA website. All livery companies have to declare when applying for their authority.
> 
> I've got my own limo service. I have all private clients. I don't do street hails. I'm a public livery service in the eyes of the federal government.
> 
> The type of nonsense that goes on in these threads is the environment uber has created hiring any schmuck with a car and a phone and turning them into drivers. It's ameteur hour 24/7 with this hack service.
> 
> Not directing that directly at you, michael. Just uber and their drivers in general.


Way to compare apple to oranges there. A private limo service and whatever the hell an Uber driver is (pending litigation) are two very different animals. You have a business 'primarily engaged in transportation' and are also an employer, that is why you have to comply with ADA law. Individual drivers are not bound by that law, they are required to comply based upon the policies set forth by Uber as a condition of their contract, but no more. There isn't anywhere in the ADA regulations that says the individual contractors of a 'covered entity' must comply with the law. It is the duty of the 'covered entity' (Uber) to ensure that its employees and contractors comply.

Here is the definition of a covered entity...

https://askjan.org/links/adaglossary.htm

Covered Entity:
under the ADA, "covered entity" is an entity that must comply with the law. Under title I, covered entities include employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees. Under title II, covered entities include state and local government instrumentalities, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and other commuter authorities, and public transportation systems. Under title III, covered entities include public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, retail stores, etc., as well as privately owned transportation systems

Care to explain to me how an Uber driver even remotely classifies as a 'covered entity'?


----------



## KekeLo

Demon said:


> You're only allergic to the physical presence of a dog?


I'm a Lil bit fear of them as well cuz one tried to tear my butt off when I was a kid.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Way to compare apple to oranges there. A private limo service and whatever the hell an Uber driver is (pending litigation) are two very different animals. You have a business 'primarily engaged in transportation' and are also an employer, that is why you have to comply with ADA law. Individual drivers are not bound by that law, they are required to comply based upon the policies set forth by Uber as a condition of their contract, but no more. There isn't anywhere in the ADA regulations that says the individual contractors of a 'covered entity' must comply with the law. It is the duty of the 'covered entity' (Uber) to ensure that its employees and contractors comply.


You're still wrong.

A vehicle for hire is the exact same thing as a vehicle for hire. The ADA is explicitly clear that IC's are bound by the same law.


----------



## Demon

KekeLo said:


> I'm a Lil bit fear of them as well cuz one tried to tear my butt off when I was a kid.


That's not how allergies work. You can be scared of them all you want, so long as you are a public accommodation you can't legally deny a disabled person a ride because they have a service animal.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> You're still wrong.
> 
> A vehicle for hire is the exact same thing as a vehicle for hire. The ADA is explicitly clear that IC's are bound by the same law.


Twist it any way you like, you can't change the fact that an Uber driver is NOT a covered entity and thus NOT bound by ADA law.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Twist it any way you like, you can't change the fact that an Uber driver is NOT a covered entity and thus NOT bound by ADA law.


There's no need to twist, like I said, the law is explicitly clear. Should I ask you to provide a court case that shows that Uber drivers are not bound by ADA?


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> There's no need to twist, like I said, the law is explicitly clear. Should I ask you to provide a court case that shows that Uber drivers are not bound by ADA?


Don't need a case, it is right there in the regulations...

https://askjan.org/links/adaglossary.htm

Covered Entity:
under the ADA, "covered entity" is an entity that must comply with the law. Under title I, covered entities include employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees. Under title II, covered entities include state and local government instrumentalities, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and other commuter authorities, and public transportation systems. Under title III, covered entities include public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, retail stores, etc., as well as privately owned transportation systems

An individual Uber driver does not meet the definition of a 'covered entity'. The drivers don't operate a privately owned transportation system, Uber might but as yet that has not been determined in a court of law.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Don't need a case, it is right there in the regulations...
> 
> https://askjan.org/links/adaglossary.htm
> 
> Covered Entity:
> under the ADA, "covered entity" is an entity that must comply with the law. Under title I, covered entities include employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees. Under title II, covered entities include state and local government instrumentalities, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and other commuter authorities, and public transportation systems. Under title III, covered entities include public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, retail stores, etc., as well as* privately owned transportation systems*
> 
> An individual Uber driver does not meet the definition of a 'covered entity'.


What you just quoted says they are.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> What you just quoted says they are.


How, what part?


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> How, what part?


The part that I bolded.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> The part that I bolded.


Drivers don't operate a 'transportation system', they just drive cars that are part of that system run by Uber.

And if your next idea was Public Accomodation take a read of this...

Public Accommodations:
entities that must comply with title III. The term includes facilities whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following 12 categories: places of lodging (e.g., inns, hotels, motels) (except for owner-occupied establishments renting fewer than six rooms); establishments serving food or drink (e.g., restaurants and bars); places of exhibition or entertainment (e.g., motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, stadiums); places of public gathering (e.g., auditoriums, convention centers, lecture halls); sales or rental establishments (e.g., bakeries, grocery stores, hardware stores, shopping centers); service establishments (e.g., laundromats, dry-cleaners, banks, barber shops, beauty shops, travel services, shoe repair services, funeral parlors, gas stations, offices of accountants or lawyers, pharmacies, insurance offices, professional offices of health care providers, hospitals); public transportation terminals, depots, or stations (not including facilities relating to air transportation); places of public display or collection (e.g., museums, libraries, galleries); places of recreation (e.g., parks, zoos, amusement parks); places of education (e.g., nursery schools, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private schools); social service center establishments (e.g., day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, food banks, adoption agencies); and places of exercise or recreation (e.g., gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, golf courses).


----------



## KekeLo

Demon said:


> That's not how allergies work. You can be scared of them all you want, so long as you are a public accommodation you can't legally deny a disabled person a ride because they have a service animal.


I would never deny a disabled person a ride with a dog. I'm talking about these Beverly Hills Jerks who just want to bring their dogs in my car. Then, they get angry when I say, hell to the, no.


----------



## Rat

dumbdriver said:


> as an independent contractor Uber cannot require you to pick up anybody by law if you are terminated for not picking them up you will sue them and win many drivers have already sold them and collected their money there's a lot of things they're not telling us they don't own your car they don't . they have gone to several different courts around the United States telling judges they have no drivers they have no cars there for they have no liability so they need to tell us nothing


I'm calling BS


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Drivers don't operate a 'transportation system', they just *drive cars that are part of that system run by Uber. *
> 
> And if your next idea was Public Accomodation take a read of this...
> 
> Public Accommodations:
> entities that must comply with title III. The term includes facilities whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following 12 categories: places of lodging (e.g., inns, hotels, motels) (except for owner-occupied establishments renting fewer than six rooms); establishments serving food or drink (e.g., restaurants and bars); places of exhibition or entertainment (e.g., motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, stadiums); places of public gathering (e.g., auditoriums, convention centers, lecture halls); sales or rental establishments (e.g., bakeries, grocery stores, hardware stores, shopping centers); service establishments (e.g., laundromats, dry-cleaners, banks, barber shops, beauty shops, travel services, shoe repair services, funeral parlors, gas stations, offices of accountants or lawyers, pharmacies, insurance offices, professional offices of health care providers, hospitals); public transportation terminals, depots, or stations (not including facilities relating to air transportation); places of public display or collection (e.g., museums, libraries, galleries); places of recreation (e.g., parks, zoos, amusement parks); places of education (e.g., nursery schools, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private schools); social service center establishments (e.g., day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, food banks, adoption agencies); and places of exercise or recreation (e.g., gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, golf courses).


Correct, drivers are a part of the Uber system. 
For the upteenth time, Uber drivers are a public accommodation and are covered by the ADA, nothing you say will change this. You not reading everything doesn't mean Uber drivers do not have to follow ADA. The law is incredibly explicit.

*Is public transportation covered by the ADA?*
Yes. If it is offered by a state or local government, it is covered by Title II. If it is offered by a private company, it is covered by Title III. Publicly funded transportation includes, but is not limited to, bus and passenger train (rail) service. Rail service includes subways (rapid rail), light rail, commuter rail, and Amtrak. Privately funded transportation includes, but is not limited to, taxicabs, airport shuttles, intercity bus companies, such as Greyhound, and hotel-provided transportation. The ADA also covers how transportation service is operated. For example, bus stops must be announced.


----------



## Demon

KekeLo said:


> I would never deny a disabled person a ride with a dog. I'm talking about these Beverly Hills Jerks who just want to bring their dogs in my car. Then, they get angry when I say, hell to the, no.


No one knows with 100% certainty who is and isn't disabled.


----------



## KekeLo

Demon said:


> No one knows with 100% certainty who is and isn't disabled.


This is true, but I don't think a poodle is a seeing eye dog.


----------



## Demon

KekeLo said:


> This is true, but I don't think a poodle is a seeing eye door.


It might not be. It could be that the dog is there to alert for seizures, or to remind someone to take medication. Let me be clear, it is not up to the driver to make the call on what animal is and isn't a service animal.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> Correct, drivers are a part of the Uber system.
> For the upteenth time, Uber drivers are a public accommodation and are covered by the ADA, nothing you say will change this. You not reading everything doesn't mean Uber drivers do not have to follow ADA. The law is incredibly explicit.
> 
> *Is public transportation covered by the ADA?*
> Yes. If it is offered by a state or local government, it is covered by Title II. If it is offered by a private company, it is covered by Title III. Publicly funded transportation includes, but is not limited to, bus and passenger train (rail) service. Rail service includes subways (rapid rail), light rail, commuter rail, and Amtrak. Privately funded transportation includes, but is not limited to, taxicabs, airport shuttles, intercity bus companies, such as Greyhound, and hotel-provided transportation. The ADA also covers how transportation service is operated. For example, bus stops must be announced.


I never said we didn't have to follow the law, I said we are not the 'covered entity' bound by the law. And no, Uber drivers are NOT a public accomodation.

Here is the definition FROM the ADA...

Public Accommodations:
entities that must comply with title III. The term includes facilities whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following 12 categories: places of lodging (e.g., inns, hotels, motels) (except for owner-occupied establishments renting fewer than six rooms); establishments serving food or drink (e.g., restaurants and bars); places of exhibition or entertainment (e.g., motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, stadiums); places of public gathering (e.g., auditoriums, convention centers, lecture halls); sales or rental establishments (e.g., bakeries, grocery stores, hardware stores, shopping centers); service establishments (e.g., laundromats, dry-cleaners, banks, barber shops, beauty shops, travel services, shoe repair services, funeral parlors, gas stations, offices of accountants or lawyers, pharmacies, insurance offices, professional offices of health care providers, hospitals); public transportation terminals, depots, or stations (not including facilities relating to air transportation); places of public display or collection (e.g., museums, libraries, galleries); places of recreation (e.g., parks, zoos, amusement parks); places of education (e.g., nursery schools, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private schools); social service center establishments (e.g., day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, food banks, adoption agencies); and places of exercise or recreation (e.g., gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, golf courses).

I see nothing there remotely resembling the role of an Uber driver.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> I never said we didn't have to follow the law, I said we are not the 'covered entity' bound by the law. And no, Uber drivers are NOT a public accomodation.
> 
> Here is the definition FROM the ADA...
> 
> Public Accommodations:
> entities that must comply with title III. The term includes facilities whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following 12 categories: places of lodging (e.g., inns, hotels, motels) (except for owner-occupied establishments renting fewer than six rooms); establishments serving food or drink (e.g., restaurants and bars); places of exhibition or entertainment (e.g., motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, stadiums); places of public gathering (e.g., auditoriums, convention centers, lecture halls); sales or rental establishments (e.g., bakeries, grocery stores, hardware stores, shopping centers); service establishments (e.g., laundromats, dry-cleaners, banks, barber shops, beauty shops, travel services, shoe repair services, funeral parlors, gas stations, offices of accountants or lawyers, pharmacies, insurance offices, professional offices of health care providers, hospitals); public transportation terminals, depots, or stations (not including facilities relating to air transportation); places of public display or collection (e.g., museums, libraries, galleries); places of recreation (e.g., parks, zoos, amusement parks); places of education (e.g., nursery schools, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private schools); social service center establishments (e.g., day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, food banks, adoption agencies); and places of exercise or recreation (e.g., gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, golf courses).
> 
> I see nothing there remotely resembling the role of an Uber driver.


The Uber platform is open to the public, Uber drivers are a public accommodation.


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yeah - god forbid common sense and courtesy should apply when instead you can make something a legal issue.
> 
> And, fyi: The ADA is administred by the EEOC div of the Dep't of Labor. EEOC regulations apply to companies - not individuals. As of right now, TNC drivers are not covered under EEOC regulations.
> https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/adahandbook.cfm
> 
> You're incorrect - legitimate allergies and phobias are just as 'real' as other disabilities.
> Your disability does not trump mine.
> Your right to access to service ends where my rights begin.


Your rights ended when you chose to provide public accommodation


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> It might not be. It could be that the dog is there to alert for seizures, or to remind someone to take medication. Let me be clear, it is not up to the driver to make the call on what animal is and isn't a service animal.


Then why does the ADA allow us to ask two specific questions, is it for our own personal amusement?


----------



## KekeLo

Demon said:


> It might not be. It could be that the dog is there to alert for seizures, or to remind someone to take medication. Let me be clear, it is not up to the driver to make the call on what animal is and isn't a service animal.


I mean, did you read papa's post below. I think, it's certain dogs that are trained to assist people who are disabled.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> The Uber platform is open to the public, Uber drivers are a public accommodation.


*BULLSHIT!*


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Then why does the ADA allow us to ask two specific questions, is it for our own personal amusement?


Feel free to ask whatever you want. The passenger doesn't have to answer or be honest.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> Way to compare apple to oranges there. A private limo service and whatever the hell an Uber driver is (pending litigation) are two very different animals. You have a business 'primarily engaged in transportation' and are also an employer, that is why you have to comply with ADA law. Individual drivers are not bound by that law, they are required to comply based upon the policies set forth by Uber as a condition of their contract, but no more. There isn't anywhere in the ADA regulations that says the individual contractors of a 'covered entity' must comply with the law. It is the duty of the 'covered entity' (Uber) to ensure that its employees and contractors comply.
> 
> Here is the definition of a covered entity...
> 
> https://askjan.org/links/adaglossary.htm
> 
> Covered Entity:
> under the ADA, "covered entity" is an entity that must comply with the law. Under title I, covered entities include employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees. Under title II, covered entities include state and local government instrumentalities, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and other commuter authorities, and public transportation systems. Under title III, covered entities include public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, retail stores, etc., as well as privately owned transportation systems
> 
> Care to explain to me how an Uber driver even remotely classifies as a 'covered entity'?


99% of the taxi driving population (the legit licensed ones) are independent contractors too. Are they immune from ADA regulation too? Just because you don't receive employee benefits, it changes nothing. You don't have a clue what you're talking.

And just for the record, YOU ARE A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. Uber is public transportation. What are you guys not understanding about that?

"It is commonly recognized that the law affects public transit systems, such as bus and rail lines. *Taxi services must comply with ADA requirements as private companies, primarily engaged in the business of transporting people, that provide demand-responsive transportation.*"

https://www.tlpa.org/news/adanotice.pdf


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> *BULLSHIT!*


So the Uber platform is not open to the public?

Feel free to curse scream and say whatever you want, it doesn't change facts.


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber is NOT (yet) an employer of drivers.
> Drivers are (so far) independent contractors.
> 
> But that's besides the point: It is a myth that every INDIVIDUAL must accommodate every individual with a disability.


An Uber driver is not a individual he's a business


----------



## Demon

KekeLo said:


> I mean, did you read papa's post below. I think, it's certain dogs that are trained to assist people who are disabled.


It is only service dogs, but there's really no way to know with 100% certainty which animals are really service dogs and which aren't.


----------



## KekeLo

Papa Sarducci said:


> Then why does the ADA allow us to ask two specific questions, is it for our own personal amusement?


I use to drive a bus at LAX. The company I worked for was always getting sued by the ADA for the drivers discriminating against disabled.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> 99% of the taxi driving population (the legit licensed ones) are independent contractors too. Are they immune from ADA regulation too? Just because you don't receive employee benefits, it changes nothing. You don't have a clue what you're talking.
> 
> And just for the record, YOU ARE A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. Uber is public transportation. What are you guys not understanding about that?
> 
> "It is commonly recognized that the law affects public transit systems, such as bus and rail lines. *Taxi services must comply with ADA requirements as private companies, primarily engaged in the business of transporting people, that provide demand-responsive transportation.*"
> 
> https://www.tlpa.org/news/adanotice.pdf


It is the company they work for that is bound by the ADA law, not the individual contractor, they are required to comply with the law as a matter of policy.

FOR THE RECORD there is no case law on the books defining Uber as Transportation Provider, until that happens they are a technology company.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

KekeLo said:


> This is true, but I don't think a poodle is a seeing eye dog.


Not all service dogs are seeing eye dogs. There are all types of service dogs that perform different types of tasks. And poodles actually happen to be one of the smarter breeds out there.


----------



## KekeLo

Rat said:


> An Uber driver is not a individual he's a business


And corporations aren't people


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> It is the company they work for that is bound by the ADA law, not the individual contractor, they are required to comply with the law as a matter of policy.


So if that company didn't have a policy, they wouldn't have to comply with the law? That's what you're trying to say?

So why are individual drivers getting arrested for denying service dogs? You typically don't get arrested unless you broke the law, no?


----------



## Papa Sarducci

KekeLo said:


> And corporations aren't people


Actually a corporation is technically considered a person.


----------



## KekeLo

Papa Sarducci said:


> Actually a corporation is technically considered a person.


I know, I was just messing around.

Citizens United.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> So if that company didn't have a policy, they wouldn't have to comply with the law? That's what you're trying to say?
> 
> So why are individual drivers getting arrested for denying service dogs? You typically don't get arrested unless you broke the law, no?


People don't get arrested for failing to comply with the ADA, the may get charged incidentally after being arrested for doing something stupid like injuring someone.

Was anyone arrested in this case, the subject of this post, no. Why? Because they couldn't be which is why it became news in the first place.

The company (covered entity) that hires the contractors is bound by ADA law to put in place policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the law by its contractors. Failure by those contractors to comply with the law their contractee is bound by is squarely the fault of the 'covered entity'. Knowing about a law and being bound by them are two separate things. I know there are laws about selling liquor, however, I'm not in yhe business of selling liquor so those laws don't apply to me personally.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> People don't get arrested for failing to comply with the ADA, the may get charged incidentally after being arrested for doing something stupid like injuring someone.


Pretty much everything you say is wrong. I'm kind of at the point where I think you're just messing with people to get them riled up.

People get charged with failing to transport a person with a service dog. That is the actual charge and individual uber drivers have and do get arrested for it. Those are laws set forth by the ADA.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> People don't get arrested for failing to comply with the ADA, the may get charged incidentally after being arrested for doing something stupid like injuring someone.
> 
> Was anyone arrested in this case, the subject of this post, no. Why? Because they couldn't be which is why it became news in the first place.


Wrong.

Here is the statute that Simon Nau was charged with breaking.

1. FAIL. TRANS. BLIND IN ACCOMPANY W/S.E. DOG Statute: 413.08 Second Degree - Misd


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Here is the statute that Simon Nau was charged with breaking.
> 
> 1. FAIL. TRANS. BLIND IN ACCOMPANY W/S.E. DOG Statute: 413.08 Second Degree - Misd


Incidental charge, he was arrested for battery because he injured a blind guy with his car.

Find the statute that he was charged under and tell me how it applies to this case.


----------



## Frontier Guy

KekeLo said:


> This is true, but I don't think a poodle is a seeing eye dog.


Ever see a standard poodle? One of the smartest breeds ever, at the shoulder most are around 24" tall.



KekeLo said:


> Because I'm never around dogs. I have to be close to dogs for them to activate my allergies.





Demon said:


> You're only allergic to the physical presence of a dog?


Um, I'm calling BS on his post.



KekeLo said:


> I'm a Lil bit fear of them as well cuz one tried to tear my butt off when I was a kid.


I had 27 stitches on the back of my leg from a Chihuahua when I used to deliver pizza's, missed my Achilles by millimeters, while I still think all Chihuahua's should be rounded up and deported, I practice common sense around strange animals.



Demon said:


> That's not how allergies work. You can be scared of them all you want, so long as you are a public accommodation you can't legally deny a disabled person a ride because they have a service animal.


we have a winner



Papa Sarducci said:


> Twist it any way you like, you can't change the fact that an Uber driver is NOT a covered entity and thus NOT bound by ADA law.


Yes, we are



Demon said:


> There's no need to twist, like I said, the law is explicitly clear. Should I ask you to provide a court case that shows that Uber drivers are not bound by ADA?


He can't


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> Pretty much everything you say is wrong. I'm kind of at the point where I think you're just messing with people to get them riled up.
> 
> People get charged with failing to transport a person with a service dog. That is the actual charge and individual uber drivers have and do get arrested for it. Those are laws set forth by the ADA.


Laws that apply to companies (covered entities) not individuals, you can be charged with whatever they want to charge you with, making it stick in court is what counts.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> Incidental charge, he was arrested for battery because he injured a blind guy with his car.
> 
> Find the statute that he was charged under and tell me how it applies to this case.


He posted the statute - Statute: 413.08 Second Degree - Misd.

Look up the case: https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search. Case number is 2016-MM-007262-A-O.

Charged with BOTH battery and failure to take the service dog. Two separate charges. One being battery and the other one you think doesn't exist in your world.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> Laws that apply to companies (covered entities) not individuals, you can be charged with whatever they want to charge you with, making it stick in court is what counts.


So the cops are just giving him random charges for the fun of it. You're right. The police are wrong.


----------



## Rat

Papa Sarducci said:


> A blind guy in a rush, good one.


So being blind means you can't be late?


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Incidental charge, he was arrested for battery because he injured a blind guy with his car.
> 
> Find the statute that he was charged under and tell me how it applies to this case.


I just literally gave you the charge.

It applies to this case because the driver refused to transport a disabled person and was charged with breaking the law.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> I just literally gave you the charge.
> 
> It applies to this case because the driver refused to transport a disabled person and was charged with breaking the law.


Here is the statute he was charged with breaking, find me the part that applies to an Uber driver, feel free to copy and paste the relevant parts so we can all see how smart you are...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0400-0499/0413/Sections/0413.08.html


----------



## KekeLo

I would never do what this driver did. It was totally wrong.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Here is the statute he was charged with breaking, find me the part that applies to an Uber driver, feel free to copy and paste the relevant parts so we can all see how smart you are...
> 
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0400-0499/0413/Sections/0413.08.html


You can't be serious. An Uber driver was charged with breaking the law and you're saying it doesn't apply to Uber drivers?

You may want to think about what you just wrote.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> I just literally gave you the charge.
> 
> It applies to this case because the driver refused to transport a disabled person and was charged with breaking the law.


Note he was charged with violating a Florida State Statute, not Federal Law. The states, just like employers, have to create laws to comply with the ADA, individuals are not bound by ADA laws.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> Here is the statute he was charged with breaking, find me the part that applies to an Uber driver, feel free to copy and paste the relevant parts so we can all see how smart you are...
> 
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0400-0499/0413/Sections/0413.08.html


(3) An individual with a disability has the right to be accompanied by a service animal in all areas of a public accommodation that the public or customers are normally permitted to occupy.

And don't say uber is not a public accommodation. It is.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> You can't be serious. An Uber driver was charged with breaking the law and you're saying it doesn't apply to Uber drivers?
> 
> You may want to think about what you just wrote.


Charged, not convicted, it will likely get thrown out and the battery charge will stick.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> (3) An individual with a disability has the right to be accompanied by a service animal in all areas of a public accommodation that the public or customers are normally permitted to occupy.
> 
> And don't say uber is not a public accommodation. It is.


Wrong, it is not by the definition of Public Accomodation in the ADA regs, show me where it is.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Note he was charged with violating a Florida State Statute, not Federal Law. The states, just like employers, have to create laws to comply with the ADA, individuals are not bound by ADA laws.


Yes. The state of Florida can only charge someone with breaking the laws of Florida.

You've been proven wrong here beyond a shadow of a doubt. Simon Nau is an individual, he is charged with breaking the law. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> Charged, not convicted, it will likely get thrown out and the battery charge will stick.


Oh ok. And you know this how? You're a lawyer now? A judge?


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Charged, not convicted, it will likely get thrown out and the battery charge will stick.


You're coming to this conclusion how exactly?


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Wrong, it is not by the definition of Public Accomodation in the ADA regs, show me where it is.


You've been shown this several times and links and quotes have been provided.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> Oh ok. And you know this how? You're a lawyer now? A judge?


Are you?


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> Are you?


I'm not the one saying which charges are going to get dropped and which ones are going to stick.


----------



## Rat

EcoboostMKS said:


> Why would you deny service to a regular passenger though? Assuming they weren't drunk or threatening in any way where it's obvious why you'd deny service, why would anyone deny service for no reason? And if you did, wouldn't uber discipline you for it if they complained?
> 
> When you deny someone service specifically because of their service dog, it's against the law. Would you turn down that same customer, in the same situation, if they didn't have a service dog? If you wouldn't, it's discrimination. This isn't just an uber policy you'd be breaking and that's why it's different.


Uber allows you to deny if pax is belligerent, even if blind. So does the ADA. You just can't deny because of the dog.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> I'm not the one saying which charges are going to get dropped and which ones are going to stick.


Neither am I.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> Yes. The state of Florida can only charge someone with breaking the laws of Florida.
> 
> You've been proven wrong here beyond a shadow of a doubt. Simon Nau is an individual, he is charged with breaking the law. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.


Nobody has been proven anything.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Neither am I.


You literally just did.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> No, actual facts. You've been provided with all the relevant info.


Where?


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Nobody has been proven anything.


I'm not looking to prove a person.

For the 3rd time, the Uber platform is open to the public.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> You literally just did.


When?


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> Neither am I.


Yeah, you're right. You spew so much nonsense, it's hard to keep up.



Papa Sarducci said:


> Charged, not convicted, *it will likely get thrown out and the battery charge will stick*.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> I'm not looking to prove a person.
> 
> For the 3rd time, the Uber platform is open to the public.


So?


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> Yeah, you're right. You spew so much nonsense, it's hard to keep up.


What does LIKELY mean in your version of English?


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> When?


Post 118 & 138.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> So?


Exactly!


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> I'm not looking to prove a person.
> 
> For the 3rd time, the Uber platform is open to the public.


If you leave the front door of your house unlocked does that make it a public accomodation?


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> If you leave the front door of your house unlocked does that make it a public accomodation?


No.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> If you leave the front door of your house unlocked does that make it a public accomodation?


That is one terrible analogy. What does that have to do with anything?

And no it doesn't.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> Post 118 & 138.


Sorry, in the mobile version the posts don't have numbers.


----------



## Rat

Papa Sarducci said:


> Oh great, now this thread has veered off into a right to life discussion.
> 
> On a similar note, when does a trip become a trip? Is it the moment you accept the ping? Or is it when you swipe Start Trip? If you cancel before swiping Start it is as if the ride never existed. It doesn't show up in your trip records and has no trip no. or waybill.
> 
> If there was no trip then nobody was denied service.


Really distorted logic there


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> That is one terrible analogy. What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> And no it doesn't.


Is iTunes a public accomodation?


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Rat said:


> Really distorted logic there


So what service did I provide by driving to the pax location, car delivery?


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> Is iTunes a public accomodation?


It is open to the public. Probably wouldn't be considered a public accommodation since it's not a physical store you can go to.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Sorry, in the mobile version the posts don't have numbers.


Sorry to hear that, the information is still there.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> So what service did I provide by driving to the pax location, car delivery?


Livery


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> Livery


Is Uber a Livery now, I must have missed that trial, share the details, please.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> Is Uber a Livery now, I must have missed that trial, share the details, please.


It is a form of it, yes. "Ridesharing" is a livery service.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> It is open to the public. Probably wouldn't be considered a public accommodation since it's not a physical store you can go to.


So since Uber (rider app) allows the user to order a service from a platform that makes it a Public Accomodation? I missed that part in the definition, can you show me a quote please?


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> And was this defined somewhere officially or did you make it up in your head?


Yes, it was officially defined in the courts. It was immediately after they defined that the grass is green and the sky is blue.


----------



## Rat

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> There is no cleanup fee, a service animal has to damage a driver's vehicle twice before anyone can claim a fee per Uber's Service Animal Policy.


Uber can't contract away liability


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Rat said:


> Uber can't contract away liability


Actually that part of the policy was a compromise, the ADA itself would not allow any cleanup fees, Uber did that as part of the settlement. If Uber gets its day in court and must comply fully I'm sure that policy will be dropped immediately.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> Actually that part of the policy was a compromise, the ADA itself would not allow any cleanup fees, Uber did that as part of the settlement. If Uber gets its day in court and must comply fully I'm sure that policy will be dropped immediately.


Uber settled, they don't want any ADA case going to court.


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> What, Uber is Public Transportation?


Yes.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> Yes.


You have a definition of public transportation in the context of the ADA regulations?


----------



## Demon

Papa Sarducci said:


> You have a definition of public transportation in the context of the ADA regulations?


Yes. It was posted in post #138.


----------



## LAuberX

too many personal attacks. thread closed.


----------



## SibeRescueBrian

Okay folks. The thread is open again for commenting. Let's all play nice, stay on topic, and keep the R-rated language out of the conversation. Keep in mind that it IS possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you.


----------



## Demon

SibeRescueBrian said:


> Okay folks. The thread is open again for commenting. Let's all play nice, stay on topic, and keep the R-rated language out of the conversation. Keep in mind that it IS possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you.


Awesome.


----------



## Disgusted Driver

Michael - Cleveland Did a quick search and the vast majority of ADA suits that have actually reached a verdict are for workplace accommodation/discrimination. All of the animal ones I found settled before trial. What does that mean? It's hard to say. In a similar domain, Universities and student access to accommodations, no school has ever gone to trial against the government because of the fear of the effect that a losing verdict would have on them. I think that's why Uber settled the few cases brought against them. There have been civil or criminal charges successfully levied against cars for hire at the state level.

So while it is true that there's no case law at the federal level to accurately predict what would happen, I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you went to trial in a federal court, at the very least you would be in for a world of hurt and I think the legal consensus is (and I'm getting this from a single attorney who handles edu ADA ) that you would lose if you failed to provide a ride to someone with a legitimate service animal.

With that said, people love to argue about this. Instead of arguing, lets get some brave soul to refuse service and get sued and we'll see what happens. I'll pass on the honor thank you.


----------



## phillipzx3

Papa Sarducci said:


> If you leave the front door of your house unlocked does that make it a public accomodation?


It does if I hang a sign in the window advertising "room for rent by the minute." 

Do not Uber drivers have stickers advertising their service placed in the window?


----------



## phillipzx3

Papa Sarducci said:


> Sorry, in the mobile version the posts don't have numbers.


Sure it does. It's right there in plain view. Yours (the post I'm quoting) is #188. It's next to the quote and reply function.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

What happened to my paisano Papa Sarducci ?


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

phillipzx3 said:


> Sure it does. It's right there in plain view. Yours (the post I'm quoting) is #188. It's next to the quote and reply function.


Not on Firefox on Android, at least on my phone.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

phillipzx3 said:


> It does if I hang a sign in the window advertising "room for rent by the minute."
> 
> Do not Uber drivers have stickers advertising their service placed in the window?


Yes, but does it meet the definition of Public Accommodation as per the ADA regulations, that is what matters. Here it is and I don't see how it does.

Public Accommodations:
entities that must comply with title III. The term includes facilities whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following 12 categories: places of lodging (e.g., inns, hotels, motels) (except for owner-occupied establishments renting fewer than six rooms); establishments serving food or drink (e.g., restaurants and bars); places of exhibition or entertainment (e.g., motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, stadiums); places of public gathering (e.g., auditoriums, convention centers, lecture halls); sales or rental establishments (e.g., bakeries, grocery stores, hardware stores, shopping centers); service establishments (e.g., laundromats, dry-cleaners, banks, barber shops, beauty shops, travel services, shoe repair services, funeral parlors, gas stations, offices of accountants or lawyers, pharmacies, insurance offices, professional offices of health care providers, hospitals); public transportation terminals, depots, or stations (not including facilities relating to air transportation); places of public display or collection (e.g., museums, libraries, galleries); places of recreation (e.g., parks, zoos, amusement parks); places of education (e.g., nursery schools, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private schools); social service centerestablishments (e.g., day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, food banks, adoption agencies); and places of exercise or recreation (e.g., gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, golf courses).

Nothing in that list even remotely resembles either a room for rent or an Uber vehicle.


----------



## rtaatl

Let me see if I can sneak this in before a possible thread closure. 
The city and state governments as well as the general public have allowed Uber to operate circumventing most guidelines, laws, and regulations because everyone is in love with chelation fares and self entitlement of having "their personal driver". The real operators in the tenasportatoon business get shunned for being "outdated" and not adapting to supposedly this new wave of the future where unregulated TNCs can do whatever they want. So now in everyone wants to throw a fit when a driver doesn't follow a regulation for real transportation services because it's morally wrong. Talk about hypocrisy at its finest. I guess Uber is fine and nothing is wrong until real issues that licensed tenasportatoon providers have to deal with come about. Yet after all...it's not like they were stranded. I'm sure there were plenty of cabs or real providers of transportation they could have called that most adhere to regulations steadily avaialble. We made it before Uber was around.


----------



## UberPissed

Incorrect headline - Driver refuses to let dog in car. 

Oh wait, nobody would be outraged with that.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Disgusted Driver said:


> Michael - Cleveland Did a quick search and the vast majority of ADA suits that have actually reached a verdict are for workplace accommodation/discrimination. All of the animal ones I found settled before trial.


That's what I saw too.


> What does that mean?


Just my opinion, but I think what it means is obvious: The ADA regs were written into law to protect the disabled from discrimination by companies and assure equal, reasonable access to public accommodations. It does NOT mean that every room in a building be 'handicap accessible' (hotel, library, school, etc.). It means that businesses and public facilities must make reasonable accommodation - without the burden of undue hardship. "Undue hardship" is different for a municipality or business than it is for an individual sole proprietor. In the eyes of the law, it always has been. That's why the law defines what a business is for the purposes of being covered by the ADA and EEOC regulations. (certain $ size, number of employees, etc.)



> With that said, people love to argue about this. Instead of arguing, lets get some brave soul to refuse service and get sued and we'll see what happens. I'll pass on the honor thank you.


hehe, nah...
instead, how about all of us drivers just treating the disabled with the same respect they would if the person were a relative. 
Accommodate when and where you can... offer assistance when and where you can't accommodate.
Do unto others, baby...


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> Yes, but does it meet the definition of Public Accommodation as per the ADA regulations, that is what matters. Here it is and I don't see how it does.
> 
> Public Accommodations:
> entities that must comply with title III. The term includes facilities whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following 12 categories: places of lodging (e.g., inns, hotels, motels) (except for owner-occupied establishments renting fewer than six rooms); establishments serving food or drink (e.g., restaurants and bars); places of exhibition or entertainment (e.g., motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, stadiums); places of public gathering (e.g., auditoriums, convention centers, lecture halls); sales or rental establishments (e.g., bakeries, grocery stores, hardware stores, shopping centers); service establishments (e.g., laundromats, dry-cleaners, banks, barber shops, beauty shops, travel services, shoe repair services, funeral parlors, gas stations, offices of accountants or lawyers, pharmacies, insurance offices, professional offices of health care providers, hospitals); public transportation terminals, depots, or stations (not including facilities relating to air transportation); places of public display or collection (e.g., museums, libraries, galleries); places of recreation (e.g., parks, zoos, amusement parks); places of education (e.g., nursery schools, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private schools); social service centerestablishments (e.g., day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, food banks, adoption agencies); and places of exercise or recreation (e.g., gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, golf courses).
> 
> Nothing in that list even remotely resembles either a room for rent or an Uber vehicle.


Thank you.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Thank you.


There's more if he would post a link like he did in the other thread. He's conventionally leaving info out from the same source he got that from.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

rtaatl said:


> Let me see if I can sneak this in before a possible thread closure.


Hurry, the thread might heat up again and they will throw a bucket of cold water on us. Somebody might say something that remotely resembles the truth. Papa Sarducci


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

EcoboostMKS said:


> There's more if he would post a link like he did in the other thread. He's conventionally leaving info out from the same source he got that from.


So why don't you point us to the same link, or are you too busy using the wrong words to describe something.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

rtaatl said:


> Let me see if I can sneak this in before a possible thread closure.
> The city and state governments as well as the general public have allowed Uber to operate circumventing most guidelines, laws, and regulations because everyone is in love with chelation fares and self entitlement of having "their personal driver". The real operators in the tenasportatoon business get shunned for being "outdated" and not adapting to supposedly this new wave of the future where unregulated TNCs can do whatever they want. So now in everyone wants to throw a fit when a driver doesn't follow a regulation for real transportation services because it's morally wrong. Talk about hypocrisy at its finest. I guess Uber is fine and nothing is wrong until real issues that licensed tenasportatoon providers have to deal with come about. Yet after all...it's not like they were stranded. I'm sure there were plenty of cabs or real providers of transportation they could have called that most adhere to regulations steadily avaialble. We made it before Uber was around.


You've got a point, but i guess i'm just old school. I've been legitimately driving long before these millennials, with their smart phones and bmw 3 series, started driving people around for 75 cents a mile or whatever the rates are.

It just bothers me when people blatantly disregard the law when it comes to people with disabilities, but this company was built on breaking the law, so why should their hack drivers be any different?


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

EcoboostMKS said:


> You've got a point, but i guess i'm just old school. I've been legitimately driving long before these millennials, with their smart phones and bmw 3 series, started driving people around for 75 cents a mile or whatever the rates are.
> 
> It just bothers me when people blatantly disregard the law when it comes to people with disabilities, but this company was built on breaking the law, so why should their hack drivers be any different?


What law are we breaking again? The Federal law that applies to employers and covered entities which we are not?


----------



## Tx rides

EcoboostMKS said:


> No, I'm correct. They do trump yours according to federal law. At least when it comes to service dogs and access.
> 
> "Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals"
> 
> https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm


It also says special accommodations should be made for BOTH, that clause could hardly apply to closed quarters (eg a car) where a different room is not an option.

The onus is generally placed on the service provider, which is Uber by most definitions, and the legally acceptable action would be for Uber to provide a suitable alternative, just like a transportation provider would do for someone requiring a wheelchair accessible vehicle. If Uber were to stop trying to play both ends of the table, they could develop a model for ADA mobility needs. Instead, they masquerade as "merely a software platform" when it suits them, but a "transportation provider" when attempting to bully cities, or drivers.


----------



## Tx rides

EcoboostMKS said:


> What would you consider an "unreasonable accommodation" in the case of an uber driver and passenger?
> 
> And keep in mind that the law clearly states fear and allergies are not valid excuses for denial of service.


denial of service, not necessarily service in one particular vehicle. Uber can send another driver who is not allergic to dander, no violations will occur.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

EcoboostMKS said:


> Unfortunately, your car is not a classroom where this is an option. And denying service because of allergies or fear is not an option, so where does that put you?


At worst, my car is one of MANY 'classrooms' made available to the public BY UBER. It is Uber's responsibility to make a handicap accessible 'classroom' available to those with disabilities. It is not the responsibility responsibility of every individual driver to make sure their vehicle is handicap accessible.

You don't seem to 'get it' (and that's fine - you're entitled to your opinion).


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

Michael - Cleveland said:


> At worst, my car is one of MANY 'classrooms' made available to the public BY UBER. It is Uber's responsibility to make a handicap accessible 'classroom' available to those with disabilities. It is not the responsibility responsibility of every individual driver to make sure their vehicle is handicap accessible.
> 
> You don't seem to 'get it' (and that's fine - you're entitled to your opinion).


It also only uses classroom as an EXAMPLE, or another 'room' in the 'facility'. The World is the facility and my car is the room.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> So you want a seperate but equal fleet of Ubers that will allow service animals?


I have no idea why what 'I want' has to do with anything.
But if I remember correctly, in NYC Uber reached an agreement with the city to make a certain number of handicap vehicles accessible. Seems like a reasonable accommodation to me.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

KekeLo said:


> I would never deny a disabled person a ride with a dog. I'm talking about these Beverly Hills Jerks who just want to bring their dogs in my car. Then, they get angry when I say, hell to the, no.


Call the cops.

http://www.shouselaw.com/service-dog.html


----------



## Tx rides

EcoboostMKS said:


> It provides an example for a room setting. The two parties stay in the same room, but different sides. This doesn't relate to a car setting though and there are no examples for a car setting. You could make assumptions to what that means if you want, but you're putting yourself at risk for deactivation or other consequences. And once a precedent is set, I'd hope people wouldn't take advantage just because they don't want dog hair in their car, but of course they would.


Do you realize there are people with extreme allergies? Dander, smoke, cat hair, etc. 
Place a cat in a room with me, I'll be disabled. ADA rights don't trump another's health rights. Sure, some may lie because they just don't want dog hair in their cars. News flash: some paxs lie about their pets being service animals. Neither instance minimizes the legitimate needs of drivers or paxs.


----------



## Demon

Tx rides said:


> Do you realize there are people with extreme allergies? Dander, smoke, cat hair, etc.
> *Place a cat in a room with me, I'll be disabled.* ADA rights don't trump another's health rights. Sure, some may lie because they just don't want dog hair in their cars. News flash: some paxs lie about their pets being service animals. Neither instance minimizes the legitimate needs of drivers or paxs.


That's not how allergies work.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

Demon said:


> So the Uber platform is not open to the public?
> 
> Feel free to curse scream and say whatever you want, it doesn't change facts.


The Uber platform being open to the public has zero to do with its classification as a Public Accommodation in the context of ADA law, that is a FACT. You think because you use the word public it does?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

EcoboostMKS said:


> It just bothers me when people blatantly disregard the law when it comes to people with disabilities, but this company was built on breaking the law, so why should their hack drivers be any different?


In case you haven't come to understand this yet: TNC drivers are not hacks/cabbies. TNC's are not (yet) regulated as taxi companies. What bothers you, it appears, is that TNC drivers can do things that you as a taxi driver can't. Your persistent lecturing here about how TNC drivers *must* abide by taxi driver regs just makes your comments look like sour grapes.


----------



## Tx rides

Demon said:


> That's not how allergies work.


Point being I would be unable to function (disabled) due to my response to cats. If service cats were a "thing", I would require special accommodations, and my rights should not be any less valuable than someone else's.


----------



## Demon

Tx rides said:


> Point being I would be unable to function (disabled) due to my response to cats. If service cats were a "thing", I would require special accommodations, and my rights should not be any less valuable than someone else's.


I think the point here is that if you were that allergic you wouldn't be able to be a driver for hire.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

Tx rides said:


> Point being I would be unable to function (disabled) due to my response to cats. If service cats were a "thing", I would require special accommodations, and my rights should not be any less valuable than someone else's.


No law can bargain away my right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, so it has been written, so shall it be.


----------



## Demon

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> The Uber platform being open to the public has zero to do with its classification as a Public Accommodation in the context of ADA law, that is a FACT. You think because you use the word public it does?


I'm very sorry to inform you that it isn't a fact, you're posting erroneous information. The ADA law is explicitly clear and Uber fits the definition of a public accommodation.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

Demon said:


> I think the point here is that if you were that allergic you wouldn't be able to be a driver for hire.


I wouldn't count on that, if his allergy were a legitimate disability they could not deny him the job without making reasonable accommodations, the EEOC would be all over that case.


----------



## Tx rides

Michael - Cleveland said:


> In case you haven't come to understand this yet: TNC drivers are not hacks/cabbies. TNC's are not (yet) regulated as taxi companies. What bothers you, it appears, is that TNC drivers can do things that you as a taxi driver can't. Your persistent lecturing here about how TNC drivers *must* abide by taxi driver regs just makes your comments look like sour grapes.


In BC, the Human Rights Tribunal has recognized dog allergies as a reason to decline, of course the taxis provide an alternative driver. The guy who sued was beyond unreasonable IMO, demanding drivers have barriers and medication. He didn't care that he had a different ride within minutes, he also doesn't think he should need to advise a dispatcher that he has a service dog.

When one side refuses to budge, another side starts digging in as well. It's a shame.


----------



## Demon

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> I wouldn't count on that, if his allergy were a legitimate disability they could not deny him the job without making reasonable accommodations, the EEOC would be all over that case.


Sure they could. It wouldn't be safe for the driver or passenger in that situation. Just like they would deny someone who is blind from operating a vehicle.


----------



## Demon

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> So instead of providing meaningful answers you are just going to keep pointing to the same bull crap that you were proven wrong on in posts afterward. Just like you tend to pick the parts of the law that agree with your viewpoint and ignore the parts that don't.


I'd love for you to show me where that link to the ADA law was discredited.

I've already provided the meaningful information that you asked for. You're the one who hasn't provided anything to the conversation. If you have a credible source showing that a vehicle for hire is not a public accommodation please post it.


----------



## Tx rides

Demon said:


> I think the point here is that if you were that allergic you wouldn't be able to be a driver for hire.


Bull. If I drove, I'd have our company send a different driver. How many paxs do drivers get with service animals? Our company has had TWO service animals in 5 years. In both cases, they advised us, to be sure we knew they had animals.

BTW-Would you say the same to a deaf driver who could not communicate with a blind pax?

What would you do with an employee who had such allergies? Fire him? Check your employment laws first!!!


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

EcoboostMKS said:


> So the cops are just giving him random charges for the fun of it. You're right. The police are wrong.


Oh, cops would never pile on charges, that never happens.


----------



## Tx rides

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> I wouldn't count on that, if his allergy were a legitimate disability they could not deny him the job without making reasonable accommodations, the EEOC would be all over that case.


Exactly. I don't think this poster understands "reasonable accommodations", nor does he realize it applies to both.


----------



## Demon

Tx rides said:


> Bull. If I drove, I'd have our company send a different driver. How many paxs do drivers get with service animals? Our company has had TWO service animals in 5 years. In both cases, they advised us, to be sure we knew they had animals.
> 
> BTW-Would you say the same to a deaf driver who could not communicate with a blind pax?
> 
> What would you do with an employee who had such allergies? Fire him? Check your employment laws first!!!


This has been covered several times. If someone was that allergic to an animal they would need to have medical paperwork with them and submitted to Uber.

What would I do with an employee who wasn't safe to be around while driving? Probably not hire them in the first place You still seem very confused on how allergies work.


----------



## Demon

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> Already have, many times, the definition of Public Accommodation per ADA Law clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with Uber, Uber drivers, or anything remotely related to transportation networks.


Again, no, you haven't. You posted select information with other pertinent information deleted. The ADA explicitly explains this law out with no ambiguity and the information has been provided in this thread.


----------



## Tx rides

Demon said:


> This has been covered several times. If someone was that allergic to an animal they would need to have medical paperwork with them and submitted to Uber.
> 
> What would I do with an employee who wasn't safe to be around while driving? Probably not hire them in the first place You still seem very confused on how allergies work.


I certainly do understand allergies and also know they can develop unexpectedly. It is not reasonable to claim a driver would be unsafe due to allergies when exposure to said allergies can be **reasonably** avoided.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

Demon said:


> This has been covered several times. If someone was that allergic to an animal they would need to have medical paperwork with them and submitted to Uber.
> 
> What would I do with an employee who wasn't safe to be around while driving? Probably not hire them in the first place You still seem very confused on how allergies work.


Really, according to this that is EXACTLY how allergies work.

http://www.aafa.org/page/asthma-allergies-and-the-american-with-disabilities-act.aspx

You would be denying them a job based on a legitimate disability, you broke the law and will be arrested.


----------



## Demon

Tx rides said:


> I certainly do understand allergies and also know they can develop unexpectedly. It is not reasonable to claim a driver would be unsafe due to allergies when exposure to said allergies can be **reasonably** avoided.


Again, you're still wrong about allergies. A driver has no idea who is covered in dog/cat...etc dander. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that at some point a pet owner covered in pet dander will get in your car while Ubering and will get dander in your car without the animal ever being present.


----------



## Demon

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> Really, according to this that is EXACTLY how allergies work.
> 
> http://www.aafa.org/page/asthma-allergies-and-the-american-with-disabilities-act.aspx


That's not how allergies work that's how the ADA works for those who have allergies and it backs up what I said about needing proper medical paperwork.


----------



## Demon

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> I have read those two posts and found no useful information in either of them.


That's awesome, but has little to do with our conversation. You claimed the information in them was wrong, I'm still asking you to show how you're able to discredit the actual ADA law.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

Tx rides said:


> Exactly. I don't think this poster understands "reasonable accommodations", nor does he realize it applies to both.


Yep, people with allergies are disabled too.

http://www.aafa.org/page/asthma-allergies-and-the-american-with-disabilities-act.aspx


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

Demon said:


> That's awesome, but has little to do with our conversation. You claimed the information in them was wrong, I'm still asking you to show how you're able to discredit the actual ADA law.


Never discredited anything, just proved you were wrong about Uber being a Public Accommodation.


----------



## Tx rides

Demon said:


> Sure they could. It wouldn't be safe for the driver or passenger in that situation. Just like they would deny someone who is blind from operating a vehicle.


Wrong. A blind person cannot even pass a driving test to obtain an operators license, with rare, anecdotal bioptics applications which have extreme legal restrictions. Thus, there is NO service operation accommodation for a blind driver for hire. There are reasonable accommodation options for a licensed driver with dog allergies, which could still serve riders AND the employee/driver.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

Not even the Law says Uber is bound by the ADA, it never went to court. They settled out of court specifically to avoid that happening. They created policies to comply with their peceived requirement but it was never officially determined in court.


----------



## Tx rides

Demon said:


> Again, you're still wrong about allergies. A driver has no idea who is covered in dog/cat...etc dander. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that at some point a pet owner covered in pet dander will get in your car while Ubering and will get dander in your car without the animal ever being present.


No I'm not "wrong". The reaction depends on the individual. I can be around people who have cats, and have very little reaction, maybe a little sniffling and eye watering...place their cat 2 feet from me, it's a different story.

I guess people with allergies should just stay home in a bubble and draw welfare, rather than reduce their exposure when it's feasible.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> What happened to my paisano Papa Sarducci ?


I'm a back.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> So you are the one true voice of ADA law now and proving you wrong discredits the entire law, get over yourself.
> 
> Anyone else want to argue with this genius, I'm through. Ignore ON.
> 
> Where is Papa Sarducci when you need him, papa, can you hear me?


I hear you my son, how may I help you.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

Papa Sarducci said:


> I hear you my son, how may I help you.


Oh, thank goodness, papa, there is this terrible demon running amok in this thread, can you help us, perform an exorcism or something?


----------



## EcoboostMKS

HERR_UBERMENSCH Forget the back and forth. We can do this forever and neither side is going to change their mind. It is what it is.

I'm just curious how you'd handle a situation like this. You're working and get a ping. No one else in the car and you arrive to a passenger and their service dog. Let's assume it's a legit service dog and not someone passing off their pet as a service dog. What do you do? Truthfully, what do you do? Cancel and drive away or do you take them?


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

EcoboostMKS said:


> HERR_UBERMENSCH Forget the back and forth. We can do this forever and neither side is going to change their mind. It is what it is.
> 
> I'm just curious how you'd handle a situation like this. You're working and get a ping. No one else in the car and you arrive to a passenger and their service dog. Let's assume it's a legit service dog and not someone passing off their pet as a service dog. What do you do? Truthfully, what do you do? Cancel and drive away or do you take them?


If a blind pax is willing to pay for XL or Select they are welcome in my car anytime. I would pick them up.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> If a blind pax is willing to pay for XL or Select they are welcome in my car anytime. I would pick them up.


But if they ordered a regular uberx, for less money, you'd turn them down?


----------



## Papa Sarducci

EcoboostMKS said:


> But if they ordered a regular uberx, for less money, you'd turn them down?


I no longer accept X rides from anyone, not worth the effort.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

Papa Sarducci said:


> I no longer accept X rides from anyone, not worth the effort.


Fair enough. I don't blame you.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH

EcoboostMKS said:


> But if they ordered a regular uberx, for less money, you'd turn them down?


No, I wouldn't waste my time running X if my vehicle is capable of XL, waste of resources.


----------



## EcoboostMKS

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> No, I wouldn't waste my time running X if my vehicle is capable of XL, waste of resources.


I assumed you did X too. So you'd take them on every platform that you drive on then. Ok... was just curious about your specific mindset on the issue.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> Oh, thank goodness, papa, there is this terrible demon running amok in this thread, can you help us, perform an exorcism or something?


Fear not, his holy Noodliness will protect you.
I shall consult the holy book, The Loose Canon, and see if the great noodly one has any incantations I can quote for you.


----------



## Papa Sarducci

Demon said:


> If you didn't discredit the information you haven't proved anything wrong. Your whole reasoning seems to be that you think the ADA law is wrong simply because you say so. In order to prove someone wrong you have to offer actual proof.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> Sure they could. It wouldn't be safe for the driver or passenger in that situation. Just like they would deny someone who is blind from operating a vehicle.


The EEOC ADA regs assure that someone who can perform a job is not discriminated against on the basis of their disability. Someone who is blind cannot drive a car (and does not have a driver's licence) - and therefore is not qualified to perform the job duties of a driver. Denying employment to someone who is not able to perform the job duties of a position is not in violation of the ADA or EEOC regulations.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> Sure they could. It wouldn't be safe for the driver or passenger in that situation. Just like they would deny someone who is blind from operating a vehicle.


A blind person is not qualified to do a driving job - and therefore is not discriminated against when denied a position which requires driving. A driving job requires the ability to operate a vehicle - and a driver's license. The ADA and EEOC regs do not require a company to hire someone unqualified to perform the duties necessary for the job. They prevent companies from denying jobs to disabled people who are qualified to do the job.


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> A blind person is not qualified to do a driving job - and therefore is not discriminated against when denied a position which requires driving. A driving job requires the ability to operate a vehicle - and a driver's license. The ADA and EEOC regs do not require a company to hire someone unqualified to perform the duties necessary for the job. They prevent companies from denying jobs to disabled people who are qualified to do the job.


And we've had quite a few people openly state they can't do the job.


----------



## Bufford McGee

This is totally up to the Driver. The Driver should have been notified of an animal before arrival. There are some very nice vehicles out there that don't want animals in their vehicle. If there is an animal they should be required to use an UBERXL and notify the driver beforehand. The vehicle is not provided by Uber, so them "firing" the driver should definitely open them up to suit.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> And we've had quite a few people openly state they can't do the job.


And if Uber & Lyft are ever found to legally be transportation companies, then you can bet that they will do more than just tell driver's they have to 'abide by all laws'. They likely will either require drivers to accommodate all pax with ADA covered disabilities - or they will create a class of service specifically for those pax.


----------



## BKMxl

tohunt4me said:


> This stuff has to end.
> 
> Service dogs must be accepted.
> 
> Too much of this on the news !


BULL Why do I have to let a Dirty Dog get into my car? And people in my house are allergic to dog/cat Dander (eyes swell etc.) It's my car, not Ubers I pay the payment, the insurance, the gas.. And I HAVE to keep it CLEAN. (also eat all the wear n tear) They take 25% of what we make.


----------



## BKMxl

Michael - Cleveland said:


> And if Uber & Lyft are ever found to legally be transportation companies, then you can bet that they will do more than just tell driver's they have to 'abide by all laws'. They likely will either require drivers to accommodate all pax with ADA covered disabilities - or they will create a class of service specifically for those pax.


Yes exactly, they need to get drivers/Class just for this, AND pay them more. We are choosing to drive our own vehicles, CHOOSING. It's our choice we are contractors, not UBER employees, that's why we do our own taxes at the end of year with write offs etc..


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

BKMxl said:


> Yes exactly, they need to get drivers/Class just for this, AND pay them more. We are choosing to drive our own vehicles, CHOOSING. It's our choice we are contractors, not UBER employees, that's why we do our own taxes at the end of year with write offs etc..


If Uber/Lyft are ever found to be transportation companies providing a public accommodation, then the choice you will make is not whether or not to accept a ride that includes a service animal - but rather whether or not you want to be a driver providing a public accommodation - which requires, by law, that you provide the service to the disabled - and their service animal.


----------



## BKMxl

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If Uber/Lyft are ever found to be transportation companies providing a public accommodation, then the choice you will make is not whether or not to accept a ride that includes a service animal - but rather whether or not you want to be a driver providing a public accommodation - which requires, by law, that you provide the service to the disabled - and their service animal.


Like I said our Choice.. only way they would do this if it's THERE Vehicles we are driving. Think what you want, I also have the right/am required by LAW to have a safe/Clean work environment, that does not affect my Health negatively.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

BKMxl said:


> Like I said our Choice.. only way they would do this if it's THERE Vehicles we are driving. Think what you want, I also have the right/am required by LAW to have a safe/Clean work environment, that does not affect my Health negatively.


Nope. Lot's of cab drivers use their owned vehicles. But the service they provide is a "public accommodation".
Nothing wrong with having your own opinion - but that's doesn't mean your opinion is legal sound.


----------



## baymatt

EcoboostMKS said:


> You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You couldn't be more wrong. Your tax status doesn't exempt you from having to follow federal laws.


Well you are both right. They should have a driver opt into it or not or pay us more for doing so.

By not alerting us ahead of time we are forced into the situation of discriminatin. Uber has UBER ASSIST. How is that not violating ADA discrimination rules by charging handicapped people more for the same ride in the same car with the same driver.

They make it so we are the bad guy. Also after doing this job for a year I don't trust anyone. Period



EcoboostMKS said:


> Why would you deny service to a regular passenger though? Assuming they weren't drunk or threatening in any way where it's obvious why you'd deny service, why would anyone deny service for no reason? And if you did, wouldn't uber discipline you for it if they complained?
> 
> When you deny someone service specifically because of their service dog, it's against the law. Would you turn down that same customer, in the same situation, if they didn't have a service dog? If you wouldn't, it's discrimination. This isn't just an uber policy you'd be breaking and that's why it's different.


I'm kind of curious if that criteria could be used against itself in your argument.

If I can refuse service to someone because they have a pet that is not a service dog, then I can refuse BECAUSE of the dog itself and not the fact that it is a service dog. I'm not discriminating against your disability, I'm discriminating against dogs because I need to make a profit and not reupholster my seats every week


----------



## Driving and Driven

Just because you can refuse a pet doesn’t mean you can refuse ANY dog. Specifically, you can’t refuse service dogs. 

It’s not just Uber policy. It’s also federal law.


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> This is soooo avoidable.
> Pax with service animals should be told to txt or call the driver with that info as soon as a driver accepts the ride and make sure they are ok with the animal. (some drivers have a disability, too - allergies, fear of dogs, etc.). The Uber rider app should notify the driver that the pax has a service animal - the same way it lets' pax's know the driver is hearing impaired.
> 
> If I don't want the ride I'll help the pax get another driver who is happy to accommodate them.


If you are allergic or have a fear of dogs, you are legally incapable of driving a vehicle for hire.



Demon said:


> Correct, it is about equal rights under the law, which you seem very opposed to. A person with a disability should have the same legal access to a public accommodation as anyone else. I'll again state, if a person has an allergy to dogs that is so severe they can't drive, they have medical paperwork to prove it and wouldn't be required to accept a service animal in their vehicle.


No, you are wrong. However, Uber is required to permanently deactivate the driver.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> END THE MYTHS
> The ADA does not require that all private places and a services must be accessible to those with disabilities.
> The ADA does not guarantee that everyone with a disability will have access to every private business or service.
> 
> The ADA does require that all public facilities and private companies and employers make "reasonable accommodation" for those with disabilities.
> The ADA also recognizes and outlines what constitutes an "undue hardship" on a company or business in making a "reasonable accommodation".


You are not a "private business". You are a public accommodation.


----------



## Rat

Demon said:


> So "legitimate" is just whatever you decide it to be?
> 
> For the third time, the only legal reason for denying someone with a service animal is if the driver has medical paperwork on hand and submitted to Uber/Lyft showing their allergy is so severe they couldn't operate the vehicle.
> 
> The end.


If you submit this paperwork, you will be permanently deactivated. The ADA specifically addresses allergies are not a valid reason to refuse service


----------



## Cctx61

dumbdriver said:


> as an independent contractor Uber cannot require you to pick up anybody by law if you are terminated for not picking them up you will sue them and win many drivers have already sold them and collected their money there's a lot of things they're not telling us they don't own your car they don't . they have gone to several different courts around the United States telling judges they have no drivers they have no cars there for they have no liability so they need to tell us nothing


It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure Uber's contract says they can terminate you anytime for any reason. In this case it is the law that says you have to take service animals and Uber's contract clearly states you have to obey the law. A blind person and their service animal do not need a ramp so there would be no reason to call Uber Assist. If you do not want a service animal in you car then you need to stop doing rideshare. If you get paid to carry passengers, you have to accept service dogs by law.



Bufford McGee said:


> This is totally up to the Driver. The Driver should have been notified of an animal before arrival. There are some very nice vehicles out there that don't want animals in their vehicle. If there is an animal they should be required to use an UBERXL and notify the driver beforehand. The vehicle is not provided by Uber, so them "firing" the driver should definitely open them up to suit.


That is a nice opinion but it is contrary to the law. If you get paid to drive passengers, you have to accept their service dog. If you cannot or will not abide by the law, you need to find another job.


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No, it's not. You keep ignoring the wording of the ADA: "reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship" as if they are not part of the law.
> 
> And THAT is the point: If one vehicle/driver can not accommodate, there are others that can and will. That is called "reasonable accommodation" without "undue hardship"


Reasonable accommodation is transporting the rider. Providing the transportation is not undue hardship. You are trying to justify being a bigoted asshole.


----------



## Cctx61

baymatt said:


> Well you are both right. They should have a driver opt into it or not or pay us more for doing so.
> 
> By not alerting us ahead of time we are forced into the situation of discriminatin. Uber has UBER ASSIST. How is that not violating ADA discrimination rules by charging handicapped people more for the same ride in the same car with the same driver.
> 
> They make it so we are the bad guy. Also after doing this job for a year I don't trust anyone. Period
> 
> I'm kind of curious if that criteria could be used against itself in your argument.
> 
> If I can refuse service to someone because they have a pet that is not a service dog, then I can refuse BECAUSE of the dog itself and not the fact that it is a service dog. I'm not discriminating against your disability, I'm discriminating against dogs because I need to make a profit and not reupholster my seats every week


The first part of understanding ADA when it comes to service animals is understanding that they are NOT pets. Any rule about pets is irrelevant when it comes to service animals.


----------



## Rat

I_Like_Spam said:


> Uber really needs to provide training for its partners.
> 
> And there is really no excuse for them not to, they are collecting enough in commish that they should be able to get the people in so they are well informed as to their legal status and the requirements to provide this kind of transportation


There is a reason. By providing mandatory training, Uber becomes an employer, something they are loath to do.



dumbdriver said:


> as an independent contractor Uber cannot require you to pick up anybody by law if you are terminated for not picking them up you will sue them and win many drivers have already sold them and collected their money there's a lot of things they're not telling us they don't own your car they don't . they have gone to several different courts around the United States telling judges they have no drivers they have no cars there for they have no liability so they need to tell us nothing


No driver has sued Uber for being deactivated


----------



## peteyvavs

You have the right to deny service for a pax with a service dog if they don't have documents stating that the dog is a service dog. It is your car, NOT Uber's and if Uber tries to de-activate you then I would sue the pants off Uber.


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber is NOT (yet) an employer of drivers.
> Drivers are (so far) independent contractors.
> 
> But that's besides the point: It is a myth that every INDIVIDUAL must accommodate every individual with a disability.


You are not an INDIVIDUAL while operating a vehicle for hire.


----------



## peteyvavs

Rat said:


> You are not an INDIVIDUAL while operating a vehicle for hire.


Sorry but you are wrong, a service dogs has to be certified as such and has documents to prove it. You can ask pax for documents and if they refuse then you can deny service because you are not the ASCPA.


----------



## Rat

Papa Sarducci said:


> Oh great, now this thread has veered off into a right to life discussion.
> 
> On a similar note, when does a trip become a trip? Is it the moment you accept the ping? Or is it when you swipe Start Trip? If you cancel before swiping Start it is as if the ride never existed. It doesn't show up in your trip records and has no trip no. or waybill.
> 
> If there was no trip then nobody was denied service.


That is the most ridiculous claim yet



peteyvavs said:


> Sorry but you are wrong, a service dogs has to be certified as such and has documents to prove it. You can ask pax for documents and if they refuse then you can deny service because you are not the ASCPA.


There is no official certification for service animals. You can not ask for documentation. You are just making up arguments that have no validity at all.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> I guess we'll wait for a court to decide, but my opinion, as expressed above, is legitimate and valid: TNC drivers do NOT provide "public accommodation". They are independent of the company (Uber/Lyft) and provide "private" service. They cannot pick-up "street hails" the way taxis can. The only people to whom a driver's services are made available are those who have created an account and established a 'membership' with the TNC.
> 
> If the TNC is found to be a transportation provider (as opposed to a tech company), then the company can be held liable.
> 
> Disagree? Then cite any case that has been fully adjudicated in a court of law, including appeals, that says otherwise.
> Until then, I stand by my comments and opinions... and will be happy to change my opinion when and if a court ruling determines something contrary.
> 
> So, please continue to post your views -
> but kindly, don't tell me what I should or should not post. Thanks.
> 
> Now, all that being said:
> _In my opinion_, anyone who denies service just because they don't want a dog in their vehicle is a jerk.
> Just keep a large towel or blanket in your car if you're concerned about your leather seats or animal hair.


Your claim that drivers are providing "private service" is not valid. Setting up a billing mechanism doesn't establish "membership" in anything.



Papa Sarducci said:


> Then why does the ADA allow us to ask two specific questions, is it for our own personal amusement?


You can ask, but the pax isn't required to answer



Papa Sarducci said:


> It is the company they work for that is bound by the ADA law, not the individual contractor, they are required to comply with the law as a matter of policy.
> 
> FOR THE RECORD there is no case law on the books defining Uber as Transportation Provider, until that happens they are a technology company.


Individual contractors are bound by the law. Are you trying to claim that drivers are not transportation providers?



Papa Sarducci said:


> Note he was charged with violating a Florida State Statute, not Federal Law. The states, just like employers, have to create laws to comply with the ADA, individuals are not bound by ADA laws.


You are a public conveyance, not an "individual". Your idiotic arguments are tiresome. I hope you are arrested and inprisoned, and then personally sued and lose your home, all your property, and have all your income garnished for the rest of your life. All these things are possible. I sincerely hope they happen to you.



Papa Sarducci said:


> If you leave the front door of your house unlocked does that make it a public accomodation?


If you drive it around the streets offering transportation for a fee it does. You really make idiotic arguments



phillipzx3 said:


> Sure it does. It's right there in plain view. Yours (the post I'm quoting) is #188. It's next to the quote and reply function.


Not on my phone. It shows up after hitting the "reply" button, but doesn't seem related to the thread. The post I am replying to right now is post: 1293658 for example



HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> What law are we breaking again? The Federal law that applies to employers and covered entities which we are not?


You are clearly a covered entity. You are a public conveyance



Tx rides said:


> denial of service, not necessarily service in one particular vehicle. Uber can send another driver who is not allergic to dander, no violations will occur.


Each driver is a separate entity. Each entity must comply



Tx rides said:


> Bull. If I drove, I'd have our company send a different driver. How many paxs do drivers get with service animals? Our company has had TWO service animals in 5 years. In both cases, they advised us, to be sure we knew they had animals.
> 
> BTW-Would you say the same to a deaf driver who could not communicate with a blind pax?
> 
> What would you do with an employee who had such allergies? Fire him? Check your employment laws first!!!


Allergies are not by law a disability



Demon said:


> That's not how allergies work that's how the ADA works for those who have allergies and it backs up what I said about needing proper medical paperwork.


The ADA specifically states allergies are not grounds to deny service. Your "medical paperwork" will get you permanently deactivated



Tx rides said:


> No I'm not "wrong". The reaction depends on the individual. I can be around people who have cats, and have very little reaction, maybe a little sniffling and eye watering...place their cat 2 feet from me, it's a different story.
> 
> I guess people with allergies should just stay home in a bubble and draw welfare, rather than reduce their exposure when it's feasible.


No, people with allergies should find a job where they won't be exposed to animals. Allergies are not legally a disability



BKMxl said:


> BULL Why do I have to let a Dirty Dog get into my car? And people in my house are allergic to dog/cat Dander (eyes swell etc.) It's my car, not Ubers I pay the payment, the insurance, the gas.. And I HAVE to keep it CLEAN. (also eat all the wear n tear) They take 25% of what we make.


The ADA requires you to.
None of the other items you post are relevant



peteyvavs said:


> You have the right to deny service for a pax with a service dog if they don't have documents stating that the dog is a service dog. It is your car, NOT Uber's and if Uber tries to de-activate you then I would sue the pants off Uber.


Pax are under no obligation to prove the dog is a service dog. There is no documentation to prove a dog is a service animal anyway. You can't sue someone for complying with the law. However, the pax can sue you personally. I would note there is no limit on punitive damages in ADA. You can literally lose everything you own and everything you wil ever make.


----------



## peteyvavs

There are certifications for service dogs here in Florida and I as a public conveyance can ask for proof of service dog if I chose to do so. Anyone can claim that their dog is a service dog, that does not mean they are. If Uber wants to contest then Uber has to advise pax to show proof or deny service.
To prove my point try and take a dog on a city bus and you'll see the driver ask for some ID to prove the dog is a service dog.


----------



## 20002000

geez no wonder 96% of you fail, personally i can give 2 doo doos if someone has a pet service or not, my issue is if they dont text ya as a COMMON COURTESY like most people in my experience do. in 3000+ trips ive had less than 10 pets 7 of those texted me like "i have blah blah blah is it ok" and im off, 3 i didnt see the mutt till i pulled up, 2 i just drove by & cancelled because the 1st that i did take & was even nice enough to stop somewhere, wait & drop somewhere else ( i know it was my 1st month i dont stop anymore) left hair all over & didnt tip.

but if its that big a deal yoy could always carry different hair with you or go take a dump, stage the scene & get a cleaning fee out of it.

or just take them 5 minutes away foryour $2 1 star them, send a request to support to never be matched with them again & poof you never have to share the same air as them again.

uber isnt public transportation & uber cant require you ti do doo doo, you are not being paid UNTIL you get there & swipe to start the trip so until then you don't have todo a dam thing for anyone on the dam planet. but they can deactivate you for whatever reason so thats up to you to risk.

I find it funny asking for allergy paperwork when you cant ask for the mutts paperwork, why should a driver have to provide private medical info if you dont? anyhoi the vast majority of these mutts serve no real legit purpose, the just accessories to entitled ******s.

its not a human right to have a private chaufere at 41% of actual costs


----------



## 20002000

but if its that big a deal yoy could always carry different hair with you or go take a dump, stage the scene & get a cleaning fee out of it.

or just take them 5 minutes away for your $2 1 star them, send a request to support to never be matched with them again & poof you never have to share the same air as them again.

uber isnt public transportation & uber cant require you to do doo doo, you are not being paid UNTIL you get there & swipe to start the trip so until then you don't have todo a dam thing for anyone on the dam planet. but they can deactivate you for whatever reason if you want to risk it thats up to you

all the arm chair lawyers are funny they have a word for making someone provide labor with no pay it was abolished quite some time ago


----------



## 20002000

HERR_UBERMENSCH said:


> No, I wouldn't waste my time running X if my vehicle is capable of XL, waste of resources.


i only keep x on out of spite 9 hours a day riders think a driver is closer but nope

but if its that big a deal yoy could always carry different hair with you or go take a dump, stage the scene & get a cleaning fee out of it.

or just take them 5 minutes away for your $2 1 star them, send a request to support to never be matched with them again & poof you never have to share the same air as them again.


----------



## 20002000

geez no wonder 96% of you fail, personally i can give 2 doo doos if someone has a pet service or not, my issue is if they dont text ya as a COMMON COURTESY like most people in my experience do. in 3000+ trips ive had less than 10 pets 7 of those texted me like "i have blah blah blah is it ok" and im off, 3 i didnt see the mutt till i pulled up, 2 i just drove by & cancelled because the 1st that i did take & was even nice enough to stop somewhere, wait & drop somewhere else ( i know it was my 1st month i dont stop anymore) left hair all over & didnt tip.

uber isnt public transportation & uber cant require you to do doo doo, you are not being paid UNTIL you get there & swipe to start the trip so until then you don't have todo a dam thing for anyone on the dam planet. but they can deactivate you for whatever reason if you want to risk it thats up to you

all the arm chair lawyers are funny they have a word for making someone provide labor with no pay it was abolished quite some time ago

if its that big a deal yoy could always carry different hair with you or go take a dump, stage the scene & get a cleaning fee out of it.

I find it funny asking for allergy paperwork when you cant ask for the mutts paperwork, why should a driver have to provide private medical info if you dont? anyhoi the vast majority of these mutts serve no real legit purpose, the just accessories like jewelry for most folks


----------



## Demon

peteyvavs said:


> There are certifications for service dogs here in Florida and I as a public conveyance can ask for proof of service dog if I chose to do so. Anyone can claim that their dog is a service dog, that does not mean they are. If Uber wants to contest then Uber has to advise pax to show proof or deny service.
> To prove my point try and take a dog on a city bus and you'll see the driver ask for some ID to prove the dog is a service dog.


There are zero certificates needed for service animals in any state.


----------



## peteyvavs

If we just tell Uber no collectively maybe they'll just stop making demands on us to use our equipment as they see fit. Of course there will always be the corporate ass kisser who'll side with the company.


----------



## Demon

20002000 said:


> geez no wonder 96% of you fail, personally i can give 2 doo doos if someone has a pet service or not, my issue is if they dont text ya as a COMMON COURTESY like most people in my experience do. in 3000+ trips ive had less than 10 pets 7 of those texted me like "i have blah blah blah is it ok" and im off, 3 i didnt see the mutt till i pulled up, 2 i just drove by & cancelled because the 1st that i did take & was even nice enough to stop somewhere, wait & drop somewhere else ( i know it was my 1st month i dont stop anymore) left hair all over & didnt tip.
> 
> uber isnt public transportation & uber cant require you to do doo doo, you are not being paid UNTIL you get there & swipe to start the trip so until then you don't have todo a dam thing for anyone on the dam planet. but they can deactivate you for whatever reason if you want to risk it thats up to you
> 
> all the arm chair lawyers are funny they have a word for making someone provide labor with no pay it was abolished quite some time ago
> 
> if its that big a deal yoy could always carry different hair with you or go take a dump, stage the scene & get a cleaning fee out of it.
> 
> I find it funny asking for allergy paperwork when you cant ask for the mutts paperwork, why should a driver have to provide private medical info if you dont? anyhoi the vast majority of these mutts serve no real legit purpose, the just accessories like jewelry for most folks


We're not talking about pets.


----------



## MHR

Soo...a guy I know well got a driver deactivated recently while traveling because the driver argued with him for 15 minutes that he did not have to accommodate his guide dog.

You can look at the dude's eyes and see he's blind. 

I do feel bad for the driver but jeez, what's up with denying service when it's an obvious service dog.


----------



## WeirdBob

peteyvavs said:


> There are certifications for service dogs here in Florida and I as a public conveyance can ask for proof of service dog if I chose to do so. Anyone can claim that their dog is a service dog, that does not mean they are. If Uber wants to contest then Uber has to advise pax to show proof or deny service.
> To prove my point try and take a dog on a city bus and you'll see the driver ask for some ID to prove the dog is a service dog.


https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

*Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADA*

Many people with disabilities use a service animal in order to fully participate in everyday life. Dogs can be trained to perform many important tasks to assist people with disabilities, such as providing stability for a person who has difficulty walking, picking up items for a person who uses a wheelchair, preventing a child with autism from wandering away, or alerting a person who has hearing loss when someone is approaching from behind.

The Department of Justice continues to receive many questions about how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to service animals. The ADA requires State and local government agencies, businesses, and non-profit organizations (covered entities) that provide goods or services to the public to make "reasonable modifications" in their policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to accommodate people with disabilities. The service animal rules fall under this general principle. Accordingly, entities that have a "no pets" policy generally must modify the policy to allow service animals into their facilities. This publication provides guidance on the ADA's service animal provisions and should be read in conjunction with the publication ADA Revised Requirements: Service Animals.
. . .

*Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?*

*A*. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.

*Q8. Do service animals have to wear a vest or patch or special harness identifying them as service animals?*

*A*. No. The ADA does not require service animals to wear a vest, ID tag, or specific harness.
. . .​----------------------------------------------------

You may not want to be a taxi. Your car may not look like a conventional taxi. You may not have commercial insurance or permits usually required of taxis.

But you are using a dispatch service to learn the locations of people wanting point-to-point transportation, and you are being compensated for transporting them. Therefore, you are a taxi. And thus, you are required to transport service animals under the requirements of THE ADA LAW. Screaming and stamping your feet and threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue does not change that reality.


----------



## Rat

peteyvavs said:


> There are certifications for service dogs here in Florida and I as a public conveyance can ask for proof of service dog if I chose to do so. Anyone can claim that their dog is a service dog, that does not mean they are. If Uber wants to contest then Uber has to advise pax to show proof or deny service.
> To prove my point try and take a dog on a city bus and you'll see the driver ask for some ID to prove the dog is a service dog.


Neither the state of Florida nor anyone else issues any official certification, so you are lying. Dogs don't carry ID, and no bus driver is going to ask for ID. If one was stupid enough to do so, he would have to be retrained. Continuing to do so would be grounds for termination. Frankly, I just can't understand how you can post what are clearly lies.



WeirdBob said:


> https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
> 
> *Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADA*
> 
> Many people with disabilities use a service animal in order to fully participate in everyday life. Dogs can be trained to perform many important tasks to assist people with disabilities, such as providing stability for a person who has difficulty walking, picking up items for a person who uses a wheelchair, preventing a child with autism from wandering away, or alerting a person who has hearing loss when someone is approaching from behind.
> 
> The Department of Justice continues to receive many questions about how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to service animals. The ADA requires State and local government agencies, businesses, and non-profit organizations (covered entities) that provide goods or services to the public to make "reasonable modifications" in their policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to accommodate people with disabilities. The service animal rules fall under this general principle. Accordingly, entities that have a "no pets" policy generally must modify the policy to allow service animals into their facilities. This publication provides guidance on the ADA's service animal provisions and should be read in conjunction with the publication ADA Revised Requirements: Service Animals.
> . . .
> 
> *Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?*
> 
> *A*. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.
> 
> *Q8. Do service animals have to wear a vest or patch or special harness identifying them as service animals?*
> 
> *A*. No. The ADA does not require service animals to wear a vest, ID tag, or specific harness.
> . . .​----------------------------------------------------
> 
> You may not want to be a taxi. Your car may not look like a conventional taxi. You may not have commercial insurance or permits usually required of taxis.
> 
> But you are using a dispatch service to learn the locations of people wanting point-to-point transportation, and you are being compensated for doing transporting them. Therefore, you are a taxi. And thus, you are required to transport service animals under the requirements of THE ADA LAW. Screaming and stamping your feet and threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue does not change that reality.


Don't bother to try to educate these fools. They just refuse to obey the law. They lie, try to misinterpret the law, cry about "my car, my rules", whatever. I look forward to the day when one of them is personally sued.


----------



## 20002000

Demon said:


> We're not talking about pets.


20 years ago they were pets and to 90% of the world theyre food no different from cows & chickens.

these ritlin babies call them "service animals" its pretty obvious the blind people or disabled people who NEED them vs. people so weak, scared, & emotionally pathetic they need "comfort" in public & think theyre special little entitled snow flakes treating animals like jewelry. stay home normal people with proper upbringing understand they asking someone to use their personal cars to give them a ride & give them a heads up because its POLITE COMMON COURTESY.

dont you want a driver who doesn't mind animals as opossed to someone who may have allergies or just hates them?

until i swipe and start trip I don't have to do Anything for anybody until im being paid period. all these people talking bout the law like yall dont speed HYPOCRITES wanna pick & choose the laws they follow. they can & will deactivate you for anything they want, its your risk to take or to try & fight it.

80% of uber is illegal & slavery & yall talking bout pets on mabye 1% of trips we talkin bout practice mane? practice?

my advice take em, 1 star em, & unmatch done deal its not that serious

im simple if they text me like a human being that they have a mutt i have no issues, if i get there & see a mutt i drive on by or away & take my loss & now they disrespectful booties gotta wait another 10 minutes


----------



## Rat

20002000 said:


> 20 years ago they were pets and to 90% of the world theyre food no different from cows & chickens.
> 
> these ritlin babies call them "service animals" its pretty obvious the blind people or disabled people who NEED them vs. people so weak, scared, & emotionally pathetic they need "comfort" in public & think theyre special little entitled snow flakes treating animals like jewelry. stay home normal people with proper upbringing understand they asking someone to use their personal cars to give them a ride & give them a heads up because its POLITE COMMON COURTESY.
> 
> dont you want a driver who doesn't mind animals as opossed to someone who may have allergies or just hates them?
> 
> until i swipe and start trip I don't have to do Anything for anybody until im being paid period. all these people talking bout the law like yall dont speed HYPOCRITES wanna pick & choose the laws they follow. they can & will deactivate you for anything they want, its your risk to take or to try & fight it.
> 
> 80% of uber is illegal & slavery & yall talking bout pets on mabye 1% of trips we talkin bout practice mane? practice?
> 
> my advice take em, 1 star em, & unmatch done deal its not that serious
> 
> im simple if they text me like a human being that they have a mutt i have no issues, if i get there & see a mutt i drive on by or away & take my loss & now they disrespectful booties gotta wait another 10 minutes


I would want the closest driver.


----------



## 20002000

Rat said:


> I would want the closest driver.


pretty entitled but thats the platform

im done by 9am keep app on till 1pm 9 hours a day just outta spite lmao oh you thought a driver was 3-9 minutes away nope uber is lying scum ignore more like 6-12+ minutes away.

i make my own ghost cars oh my why uber lie so much? yup they made it a game & i play x like Beethoven played piano

acceptance rate 10% or less & i cancel least 1 a day if not more after they waited 5 minutes & i havent moved because they didn't reply to my text or i just know the address, low rating, etc gotta give them worse treatment ever just like uber treats drivers

thats 1-2 outta 10 rides now since i screen so 80% of my rides 30+ miles to the airport

steal $1 from me its gonna cost ya $100+

cancelled 15 this week was feeling frosty after a pax lied for a refund im sure the 100 different email bots all copy & pasting the same non sense to me refusing to pay me, the 15 people in a hurry i cancelled on, & the 100+ ignored folks who had to wait longer than they thought they had to, was worth the $4 which is equivalent to spitting in a drivers face in 2017 anyway


----------



## sss

Carrying a service animal is just an abuse of a driver. Unfortunately the system (law and Uber) doesn't give a shit about Uber drivers.


----------



## Oscar Levant

dumbdriver said:


> as an independent contractor Uber cannot require you to pick up anybody by law if you are terminated for not picking them up you will sue them and win many drivers have already sold them and collected their money there's a lot of things they're not telling us they don't own your car they don't . they have gone to several different courts around the United States telling judges they have no drivers they have no cars there for they have no liability so they need to tell us nothing


Please cite the law that says this. I don't think there is one.


----------



## Rat

20002000 said:


> pretty entitled but thats the platform
> 
> im done by 9am keep app on till 1pm 9 hours a day just outta spite lmao oh you thought a driver was 3-9 minutes away nope uber is lying scum ignore more like 6-12+ minutes away.
> 
> i make my own ghost cars oh my why uber lie so much? yup they made it a game & i play x like Beethoven played piano
> 
> acceptance rate 10% or less & i cancel least 1 a day if not more after they waited 5 minutes & i havent moved because they didn't reply to my text or i just know the address, low rating, etc gotta give them worse treatment ever just like uber treats drivers
> 
> thats 1-2 outta 10 rides now since i screen so 80% of my rides 30+ miles to the airport
> 
> steal $1 from me its gonna cost ya $100+
> 
> cancelled 15 this week was feeling frosty after a pax lied for a refund im sure the 100 different email bots all copy & pasting the same non sense to me refusing to pay me, the 15 people in a hurry i cancelled on, & the 100+ ignored folks who had to wait longer than they thought they had to, was worth the $4 which is equivalent to spitting in a drivers face in 2017 anyway


You may be mentally ill


----------



## 20002000

Rat said:


> You may be mentally ill


o.k. if you say so i just dont get mad i get even, I know im working for organized crime/ponzi scam 96% fail first year im going over 2 so a 1%er that easily make $1000+ a week after gas on 20-30 rides doing the opposite of everything uber suggests when i started it was 20-30 rides a day barely woukd break $90 a day before gas

im an "independent contractor" i get the details of my contract before i leave my bed, if other want to enter into blank contracts that requires free coerced labor thats on them & who cares by design they wont be here next year so they can enjoy all my scraps

im willing to cut my nose to spite my face, i was fine before uber will be fine after didnt sign up out of desperation i signed up to learn a new city after relocating. i stand for something, im with this ponzi till it crumbles, i deactivated, or get gets bought or bailed out for pennies in the dollar, until then if its ef me its ef you too

anything less than 100% of $7 is spitting in your face I don't say please sir can i have another 1 star i never see em again...

ill be dat

dew u


----------



## Rat

20002000 said:


> o.k. if you say so i just dont get mad i get even, I know im working for organized crime/ponzi scam 96% fail first year im going over 2 so a 1%er that easily make $1000+ a week after gas on 20-30 rides doing the opposite of everything uber suggests when i started it was 20-30 rides a day barely woukd break $90 a day before gas
> 
> im an "independent contractor" i get the details of my contract before i leave my bed, if other want to enter into blank contracts that requires free coerced labor thats on them & who cares by design they wont be here next year so they can enjoy all my scraps
> 
> im willing to cut my nose to spite my face, i was fine before uber will be fine after didnt sign up out of desperation i signed up to learn a new city after relocating. i stand for something, im with this ponzi till it crumbles, i deactivated, or get gets bought or bailed out for pennies in the dollar, until then if its ef me its ef you too
> 
> anything less than 100% of $7 is spitting in your face I don't say please sir can i have another 1 star i never see em again...
> 
> ill be dat
> 
> dew u


Ok, definitely mentally ill


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

20002000 said:


> o.k. if you say so i just dont get mad i get even, I know im working for organized crime/ponzi scam 96% fail first year im going over 2 so a 1%er that easily make $1000+ a week after gas on 20-30 rides doing the opposite of everything uber suggests when i started it was 20-30 rides a day barely woukd break $90 a day before gas
> 
> im an "independent contractor" i get the details of my contract before i leave my bed, if other want to enter into blank contracts that requires free coerced labor thats on them & who cares by design they wont be here next year so they can enjoy all my scraps
> 
> im willing to cut my nose to spite my face, i was fine before uber will be fine after didnt sign up out of desperation i signed up to learn a new city after relocating. i stand for something, im with this ponzi till it crumbles, i deactivated, or get gets bought or bailed out for pennies in the dollar, until then if its ef me its ef you too
> 
> anything less than 100% of $7 is spitting in your face I don't say please sir can i have another 1 star i never see em again...
> 
> ill be dat
> 
> dew u


If your in NYC (just a guess based on how long you have been doing it, and your in NY)

Your getting a LOT more per mile than most of the drivers across the country are. I know your expenses are a lot higher with increased insurance costs and whatnot.. so I get *THAT* part as well...

All of this being said... Your in NYC..

20-30 rides for me is about 18-20 hours total driving here.

$1000+ a week after gas.. in some places it's $500 a week BEFORE gas... some places are so terrible in comparison that you can hardly believe it.

Take the per mile per minute rate of 1 particular uber service in Orlando. $1.71 per mile, 4c per mile less than uber poo is in NYC. Care to take a guess which uber service get's this? The PER MILE rate of the MOST EXPENSIVE uber service in Orlando is less than uber pool is in NYC.

I guess what i'm saying is, your costs might bed higher (not denying this) but you could be getting twice as many trips per hour and over twice as much per mile as the bottom markets in the US.

AND PS

a $3.00 driver payout in Orlando can be as much as 2 mile 10 minute drive.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Oscar Levant said:


> Please cite the law that says this. I don't think there is one.


Complying With the Americans With Disabilities Act: Who's Responsible for Complying?

Businesses with at least 15 employees.
Uber is required to comply with the ADA.
An individual does not have to comply.
For a driver to be legally required to comply, they would need to be an employee of the company.

HOWEVER, Uber, as policy, can require their independent contractors to comply with any (legal) POLICY they want.
If you don't like it or don't want to comply then don't sign-up or continue to drive Uber.
(see Uber's 'policy' on carrying firearms)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

painfreepc said:


> You get a ping and then a phone call,
> Hello I have for big service animal dogs and four full-size adults and Luggage we're going to the airport what's your ETA,


Me: 
"I'll be happy to take your service dog and the luggage, 
but you and your friends will require an UberXL."


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Oscar Levant said:


> Ahh, the independent contractor / employee argument.


lol... no, it's not. The Title III laws and the ADA apply to businesses, not individuals. Has nothing to do with IC vs. employee. It has to do with the legal definition of a business. It varies by state and federal program, but is always defined in the law itself and nowhere that I know of of (except possibly CA) is a business defined as anything less than an employing organization with less than $150,000 annual revenue or fewer than 3 employees... and it's higher than that in most cases.

If it weren't set up that way, every homeowner who was self employed without any other employees would be required to to provide handicap access to their home and handicap parking space in their driveway.

The 'spirit of the law' is to protect individuals, not just the disabled. If it weren't, then the definition of a business would not be limited in the law.


> I take all dogs, period, problem solved. In fact, let's just get rid of humans, dogs are a lot better


Me too - and that's why I am now driving much more Amazon Flex than Uber.


----------



## santhony109

What about fake service dogs? I my locality people take their dogs everywhere. Stores and restaurants are in violation of health codes if these dogs aren't legitimate service dogs and I'm betting the majority of them are not. Shouldn't service dogs be licensed? BTW I love dogs but just like children I don't yours forced on me.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Michael - Cleveland said:


> lol... no, it's not. The Title III laws and the ADA apply to businesses, not individuals. Has nothing to do with IC vs. employee. It has to do with the legal definition of a business. It varies by state and federal program, but is always defined in the law itself and nowhere that I know of of (except possibly CA) is a business defined as anything less than an employing organization with less than $150,000 annual revenue or fewer than 3 employees... and it's higher than that in most cases.
> 
> If it weren't set up that way, every homeowner who was self employed without any other employees would be required to to provide handicap access to their home and handicap parking space in their driveway.


Maybe, but judges can do whatever they want, letter of the law or not (you can appeal, of course, if you have the dough and determination ). I can see some PETA loving judge, refusing to go along with the idea that it's okay for you to refuse a handicapped person with a dog --- I'll bet that judge will find a way, some legal argument, maybe some case law, who knows, IANAL, to rule in favor of the handicapped person who is suing you.

I see you guys citing laws, like you really know how the system works, what, are you a lawyer?

If so, enlighten us. Otherwise, I don't believe you.

Besides, it's in the Uber TOS, you have to take service dogs or quit.



santhony109 said:


> What about fake service dogs? I my locality people take their dogs everywhere. Stores and restaurants are in violation of health codes if these dogs aren't legitimate service dogs and I'm betting the majority of them are not. Shouldn't service dogs be licensed? BTW I love dogs but just like children I don't yours forced on me.


We live in a society with rules, and those rules are "forced on you". sorry. You want to live in a country with virtually no laws, I can think of just the place, Somalia. have fun !

There is no official licensing agency to license service dogs. If a service dog can do what the law requires a service dog to do, then it is a service dog. There are strict guidelines on how a vendor can treat, question, etc., someone who states they have a service dog. If you believe, via your questioning, that the person is lying, and you refuse service, and they sue you, you gotta ask yourself, is it really worth it to deal with it in a court of law? --- why not just accept the dog, and move on to the next trip. I mean, In the last year, I can recall only a couple of service dogs.

besides, laws or not, it's in the Uber TOS, so they can deactivate you if you refuse a service dog.


----------



## touberornottouber

I accept all service animals. Heck I even accept all reasonable pets as long as the rider agrees that the pet will be ok in the vehicle and accepts responsibility for any accidents.

However wouldn't it be a lot easier for everyone if they just had a flag drivers could set for things such as "accepts service animals" and "accepts pets"? I know this probably is an issue with the ADA or something but wouldn't it just make sense? This way the passenger's time would not be wasted with drivers canceling due to the animals and drivers who have major problems (severe allergies, OCD, etc) with it could avoid it altogether.

I'd like to think most of us out here aren't total assholes and that we would gladly set our preferences to allow service animals. I know I gladly would.


----------

