Uber Ordered To Pay $1.1 Million To Blind Passenger Who Was Denied Rides 14 Times (theguardian.com) 208
whoever57 writes: A blind person with a guide dog was denied rides and harassed because of her guide dog. She sued Uber, which tried to blame its contractors and deny liability. However, an arbitrator has rejected that argument and found the company liable, awarding the blind passenger $1.1 million. The arbitrator found that Uber staffers coached drivers on how to deny rides to disabled passengers without it appearing to be a violation of the law. The staffers also advocated to keep problematic drivers on the platform.
Shame on them (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Anosognosia made them blind. They literally didn't see this coming.
Re:Shame on them (Score:5, Insightful)
The horrifying aspect of this is that there were 14 people willing to leave a blind lady stranded on the street at night regardless of the legality.
Re:Shame on them (Score:5, Insightful)
You're surprised?
That's the gig economy: force human beings to act as servile soulless machines and they'll turn into servile soulless machines.
WWII has shown us how decent people can very quickly become monsters and justify it later by saying it was normal and they were just following orders.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a solution for licensed cabs. I have blind friends. If they are waiting for a cab, I'll hail it instead and hold the door open. Then they climb in. I also jot down the cab # and date and time if they give any trouble and report if to the Toronto Taxi Commission.
Don't just wring your hands. Be THAT kind of a-hole, and do something!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The arbitrator found that Uber staffers coached drivers on how to deny rides to disabled passengers without it appearing to be a violation of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try, but consider: You come out of work late and your car won't start. Do you say to yourself "I'll just use the app on my phone to get a ride from Jim Smith" or do you say "I'll take an Uber home"?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't know Jim Smith, so I'd just call a taxi.
Re:Shame on them (Score:4, Informative)
Uber drivers are not Uber and Uber's customers are not the driver's customers. The only customer that an Uber driver has is Uber. Full stop.
And, as independent contractors, they absolutely have 100% discretion on what fares they accept from Uber. The entire liability is on Uber to meet the needs of their customers and if a driver refused a fare and Uber said oh well then that should be net with a lawsuit.
My girlfriend drove for Uber and it was insane the number of people who would scream 'I don't give a fuck that your daughter has a severe allergy to dogs and could end up in the hospital if my dog gets in your car'. She eventually quit because it seems like Uber had a don't give a fuck policy and refused to deal with the issue on either end. I never use them but thought it was crazy they didn't have something in place to find out whether a customer wanted to bring an animal or whether a driver was ok with that since both of those are kind of important to parties involved.
Re: (Score:3)
What was the motivation?
Why did Uber and/or the drivers want to deny service to a paying customer?
It is legal to deny service if an animal is misbehaving, so that wasn't the problem.
Re: Shame on them (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber's defense is particularly annoying and reminds of the kid in high school who thinks they are smart because they found a loophole that allows bad behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
It is legal to deny service if an animal is misbehaving, so that wasn't the problem.
I guessing the driver was worried about shedding fur. Our dog is short haired, a Beagle-Harrier, but sheds a lot of fur all year round. After he has been in our car the seats are full of it and they need to be vacuumed.
The driver probably wanted to avoid the downtime of vacuuming, and didn't want to have his next passenger get full of hair.
The taxi service in my city will hook you up with a driver that accepts dogs. There are department stores here that forbid dogs, although most restaurants allow them
Re:Shame on them (Score:4, Informative)
>"I guessing the driver was worried about shedding fur. The driver probably wanted to avoid the downtime of vacuuming, and didn't want to have his next passenger get full of hair."
What nobody has pointed out yet is that dogs are also a major allergen. Despite being on medication, if I am in close proximity to a dog for more than a very short time, I can have not only major allergy problems, but also an asthma attack. If I were an Uber driver, I absolutely would not allow pets in my car, it doesn't matter what the law says- someone else's disability/issue shouldn't be more important than my disability/issue.
Further, that contamination of the car doesn't just magically disappear once the dog is out of the car- the dander persists and will affect not only the driver, but subsequent passengers. It can get caught in the A/C system and be extremely difficult to remove. This is on top of fur everywhere, possible lingering dog smell, damage to the seat leather/upholstery, etc.
I am all for reasonable accommodations, but what is reasonable will vary quite a bit in individual circumstances.
>"But I have seen people with dogs clearly marked as a "Therapy Dog" that were allowed allowed into places where they are usually forbidden."
A huge scam nowadays. I guess that 90+% of so-called "therapy dogs" (or pets) are nothing of the sort. The owner just wants to have their dog with them and slaps a sign on the dog, forcing everyone around them to make ridiculous accommodations. "Emotional support"- OMG.
Re:Shame on them (Score:5, Insightful)
If you cannot or will not obey ALL of the laws surrounding driving people in your car for hire, then you cannot drive people in your car for hire. It really is just that simple.
It sounds like driving for Uber is not for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't this essentially saying that he cannot avail himself of an employment opportunity on account of his medical condition?
That doesn't seem like what the ADA actually had in mind about needing to accommodate the disabled. Indeed, I fully support that they should obey ALL the laws, but part of that means that if a call comes in for a blind person with a service dog that they absolutely serve that customer using a driver that's not allergic to the dog.
That seems like a far better state of affairs than eithe
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and that's on Uber, which is why the judgement went against Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Isn't this essentially saying that he cannot avail himself of an employment opportunity on account of his medical condition? That doesn't seem like what the ADA actually had in mind about needing to accommodate the disabled."
I was going to point out that same irony. So, because the possibility exists of someone blind needing to travel somewhere with a dog, I should be denied Uber, taxi, bus, limousine, etc [an entire category of] employment? Which is worse?
This is the problem with so-called "positiv
Re: (Score:2)
That would be reasonable, match up passengers needing a service animal with drivers willing and able to accommodate them.
But it's on Uber to actually do that.
Re: (Score:3)
And yes I agree the so-called "therapy pets" are a scam. They're enabled by legislation which, much like the DMCA errs too much in favor of copyright holders, errs t [seeingeye.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I guessing the driver was worried about shedding fur. Our dog is short haired, a Beagle-Harrier, but sheds a lot of fur all year round. After he has been in our car the seats are full of it and they need to be vacuumed.
I have a friend that does the uber thing, and if you can name a substance that comes from the human body or is often put in a human body, he's had it in his car. So this kind of thing tends to go with the territory. Dog hair is a minor nuisance in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
They are trained not to go on the upholstery or slobber all over everything. They are usually wearing a high vis vest too. You can be sure that they have been well trained to be on best behaviour.
If you operate public transport then this is what you signed up for.
Re:Shame on them (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring the law is baked into Uber's corporate culture. From the earliest days they ignored laws on the correct theory that if they grew fast enough they'd get too big to punish before local authorities could get their act together and stop them.
Now the old taxi system was corrupt and riddled with organized crime, so there wasn't much to choose between Uber and it. But Uber has achieved a scale where it is nearly impossible to control. With quarterly gross revenues of 3 billion, 1.1 million is about fifteen minutes of company revenue. If they see any advantage to violating ADA, that will hardly deter them.
Re: (Score:2)
You can deny service to a disabled person if it would be an undue hardship and you make a reasonable accommodation instead. It's very reasonable for an Uber driver to pull up, see the guide dog and say "I don't drive dogs, let me call Uber-Corporate and get a dog-friendly taxi sent instead of me". It's also reasonable for a person with a phobia of dogs to refuse to allow guide-dogs in their shop and instead offer to have an employee bring out items curbside.
Re:Shame on them (Score:5, Informative)
An Uber driver explained the situation on Reddit. Basically the driver is legally responsible if anything happens to eg. a wheelchair or the disabled person, and if any of their equipment damages the driver's car Uber basically says Tough Luck, Screw You. Therefore the drivers avoid these passengers in order to defend themselves as that's the only option they're left with.
Re: Shame on them (Score:2)
I've seen public bus drivers pass up wheelchair bound riders because they don't want to take the time to put down the ramp, lift up the seats, hook up the special seatbelt apparatus.... even when the bus does not have many riders on it.
These buses are equipped with GPS, and they are real time monitored by the central dispatch. If a driver is running late, he/she does not want the extra time logged, watched, and coming out of his/her pay.
Re: Shame on them (Score:2)
Not 1.1 Million (Score:5, Informative)
324k for the blind person ... the rest was for the lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why would it be OK to provide that to the lawyer who wasn't even wronged?
Re: Not 1.1 Million (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you telling us that lawyers have 600K$+ worth of expenses for a single fucking case?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you telling us that lawyers have 600K$+ worth of expenses for a single fucking case?
Well, they are suing Uber, I expect that is much more expensive than suing Joe's Taxi. A case against Amazon is going to be mind bogglingly expensive compared to one against the corner convenience store. That is the way your legal system works, and it is very much to the advantage of the biggest players. The sheer size of these corporations is an incentive for them to behave badly because most people simply can't afford to fight.
But at least in this case we see it works both ways. If the defendant h
Re: (Score:3)
No punitive damages (Score:3)
Uber also paid for the arbitrator and their staff's time.
Re:Not 1.1 Million (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Dog rides for free (Score:5, Informative)
When UBER first started in San Diego I joined on before there was a handicap policy. I was looking at the platform as an investor opportunity to fleet-scale franchises. I didn’t discriminate picking up “riders” school age, handicapped, blind, deaf and drunk. The only problem ever had was “drunk” and “doggie”.
The drunk was a $100 interior cleanse, deep clean and disinfect. Doggie was a four month flea bomb campaign to rid the interior of biting insects, hatches and repeated cleanings after each treatment.
Uber had a drunk policy for charging back the cost to clean the car. No problem. But no such policy existed for animals. So that is a burden borne by the contractor to add to his maintenance expense. There is a problem. Its not all UBER who is at fault. But the animal policy needs addressing to compensate the contractor expense in meeting the quality of service UBER riders expect.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's much worse than just refusing to investigate and suspend drivers. From the article:
IOW, Uber was not just failing to investigate and suspend. It was coaching its drivers on how to violate the law and keeping them on even when it knew they were break
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reminded of a story I once heard about baker who wanted to refund a deposit made for a wedding cake for an engaged couple in the aftermath of meeting the couple, when the baker discovered that they were the same sex, and despite the baker never once saying that was the real reason they were refusing service, the bakery still ended up getting shut down.
Guilty until proven innocent. It happens
Re: Dog rides for free (Score:2)
"despite the baker never once saying that was the real reason they were refusing service"
It isn't hard to put 2+2 together here. What legitimate (other) reason did the baker have for doing it?
Guilty until proven innocent- maybe. But they sure had nothing in their defense of why they did what they did.
Re: Dog rides for free (Score:2)
You may have seen the sign "We have the right to refuse service". This actually dates back to the Jim Crow era, shortly after those laws were repealed, so white owners could still refuse service to blacks.
Somehow I doubt those signs have any legal standing today, but most people don't question it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you be more specific? I assumed you were talking about Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission [wikipedia.org] but your summary doesn't fit the facts of the case. In that case the owner specifically cited his religious belief as the reason for refusing service. Is there another gay wedding cake case that I'm unaware of?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dog rides for free (Score:2)
Re: Dog rides for free (Score:5, Insightful)
The contractor should be including such expenses in the rate they charge.
The "contractor" doesn't set the rates, Uber does. That's one of the many reasons why Uber drivers are not really contractors, regardless of how they are treated.
There are potential real costs to having an animal in one's car, and that's not even getting into the issue of allergies which does sometimes result in restrictions in access for persons requiring a guide dog. Examples I read about included dormitories with dog and no-dog sections. I used to have a severe allergy to dogs which could set off my normally activity-induced bronchial asthma. Thankfully I got over it... sometime around age 40. Thankfully not because I ever plan to drive for Uber (I don't drive anything that would serve as an Uber vehicle) if I lost or forgot my inhaler, even a merely excessively friendly dog encounter could kill me. My asthma isn't what it was back then either, though it's still no picnic.
Taxi services accommodate wheelchair-bound passengers by dispatching specific vehicles. Uber should do the same for passengers with service animals. A driver who can accommodate them should be dispatched to pick them up. They should not pay any more for the service, and Uber should go out of their way to identify sufficient drivers who can serve them that they do not experience undue delays either. But then again, some say that Uber should take a flying fuck in a rolling doughnut, and then they won't be serving anyone so the issue is multifaceted to say the least.
Re: Dog rides for free (Score:2)
Re: Dog rides for free (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that in the aggregate, Uber and the drivers are providing a taxi service. I don't agree that every driver should have to transport dogs, though, only that it's Uber's responsibility to find some that will in the right places, by paying *gasp* a fair wage if necessary
Re: (Score:2)
This is odd. Does this mean that person with allergies is required to "just get over it and die" and take dogs on board?
Or are such people blocked from ever working in the industry?
I'm getting a feeling that there are huge, tremendous, utterly massive asterisks attached to this particular part which are being intentionally left out.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber COULD match up people needing a service animal with people willing and able to accommodate service animals. Instead, Uber has chosen to not give a rat's ass.
Re: (Score:2)
And that would be a problem. As a privately run public traffic organization running a taxi service, you should commit best reasonable effort to serve such customers properly.
But drivers should have full control over allowing or not allowing persistent sources of allergens such as animals in their vehicles.
Re: Dog rides for free (Score:2)
As for Uber, I think it's possible that they deliberately don't m
Re: (Score:2)
Scenario: you are a driver. You allow someone with a dog in. Dog sheds fur.
Next person to get in gets severe allergies which require a visit to ER/cause long term damage. Who is guilty of massive harm caused in the name of not creating a minor inconvenience?
This is why public transit in general regulates persistent allergens and recommends avoiding when not alltogether banning them.
Question: Why is it that you find it ethical to remove minor inconvenience in favor of creating massive harm?
Re: (Score:2)
Allergies is why I said "willing and able". I would consider allergies to mean un-able.
Re: (Score:2)
Scenario: you are a driver. You allow someone with a dog in. Dog sheds fur.
Next person to get in gets severe allergies which require a visit to ER/cause long term damage. Who is guilty of massive harm caused in the name of not creating a minor inconvenience?
This is why public transit in general regulates persistent allergens and recommends avoiding when not alltogether banning them.
Re: Dog rides for free (Score:2)
The issue is that Uber clearly fits the definition, the drivers are in a gray area. One argument is that as a "gig" worker they are not "primarily engaged." On the other hand, when they are providing service
Re: (Score:2)
>No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability
"I do not discriminate based on disability, I discriminate based on allergenic effects of the dog".
Who wins? Allergies would count as disability, and letting a dog on board would effectively preclude same car from servicing people with severe allergies for quite a while. In worst cases, where fur enters the ventilation systems and gets stuck, car may generate allergenic effect for months. In your scenario, there's no way to not discr
Re: (Score:3)
If you're a driver and allergic to specific allergen, at least here in Finland yes you can. It is in fact strongly recommended by public traffic organizations to avoid using things like strong cologne if you're going to ride any public transit (taxis are regulated as such). Driver has a right to ask you to leave if it causes problem to another customer or him/herself. It's common sense that if you're causing a disturbance by your actions that harm others, you are asked to leave.
In case of dogs, they are str
Is that an "allergy" (Score:2)
I would say if a dog is triggering an asthma attack, it's no longer a simple allergy but is it's own disability.
Re: (Score:2)
If Uber is unwilling to pay the real costs of providing rides plus a reasonable profit, then don't drive for Uber. That is actually one of the complaints about Uber is that they go out of their way to downplay those real costs and many drivers don't consider them until they find that somehow they're not making the kind of money the slick ads suggested they would once all expenses are paid.
Likewise, many drivers fail to consider the added vehicle maintenance costs or the possibility that commercial use might
Re: (Score:3)
The deeper problem is that because there is no central registry or identification branding for guide dogs, people can pass off any random mutt as a guide dog and the business is not even allowed to ask for proof of disability. This has become a huge problem for airlines, grocery stores, restaurants, and other businesses where you wouldn't want an untrained dog being passed off as a Seeing Eye.
Re: (Score:2)
While this is true, I don't think that it is a real problem. People generally don't have fake guide dogs, they have fake "service dogs". As others have written, it's easy to identify a guide dog, because either the dog will be wearing a harness, or the dog's handler will be carrying a harness. However, a dog that is claimed to be a service dog that helps the handler in some other unspecified manner is m
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, you're allowed to ask the person if it is a service animal, or kick them out if the animal is disruptive. The problem with a central registry is there's no central authority on what constitutes a service dog.
Re: (Score:2)
The deeper problem is that because there is no central registry or identification branding for guide dogs, people can pass off any random mutt as a guide dog and the business is not even allowed to ask for proof of disability. This has become a huge problem for airlines, grocery stores, restaurants, and other businesses where you wouldn't want an untrained dog being passed off as a Seeing Eye.
This is because many people have great concerns about sharing their medical information with third parties.
Proving you need a service animal is very much the same as proving you have been vaccinated against COVID - many of both customers and service providers would appreciate the potential convenience it adds to doing everyday business, and others would be very uncomfortable with the privacy implications.
For now your laws seem to prefer the latter group. That could change, but rest assured no scenar
This is where Uber is a sickness (Score:2)
No you didn't. The handicap policy is set by federal statute. You just joined when Uber was completely violating it as opposed to pretending it did not.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me like releasing fleas into someone else's vehicle is something that should be charged back to the rider, not necessarily something that goes to Uber. How would Uber and drivers handle a rider who was completely covered in mud? Is there any sort of extra cleaning fee?
I hope that 1/2 of that $1.1 million ... (Score:4, Interesting)
is to be paid by the Uber staffers. Them having to pay will change their behaviour. $1.1 million paid by Uber is just a business cost.
Re: (Score:2)
The staffers were acting as instructed by their employer. The real answer is to make sure it's enough money to sting Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
The staffers were acting as instructed by their employer.
their employer is a company it is inanimate, it cannot instruct anyone; a person has to do that on behalf of Uber. That person needs to be fined.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the person who actually made the policy should feel the pain, not the workers who were required to follow it.
Re: (Score:2)
is to be paid by the Uber staffers. Them having to pay will change their behaviour. $1.1 million paid by Uber is just a business cost.
No. You are demonstrating scapegoating in the completely wrong way. Corporations love pinning things on rogue staffers. This is *not* at all a way to change corporate policy.
Make the C-suits pay, or sink enough costs into the company to make the investors hold the C-suits accountable, but going after some random staff is incredibly dumb.
Huh? (Score:2)
This doesn't really seem like stuff that matters OR news for nerds. $1.1m doesn't even strike me as something Uber execs are likely even aware of.
Doesn't surprise me of Uber (Score:2)
The CEO is shady as hell
Excellent. (Score:2)
A customer won in arbitration? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Original submitter here.
Yes, I should perhaps have highlighted that aspect of the story. I did make it clear that this was an award made by an arbitrator.
I assume that the arbitrator will not be getting much demand for his arbitration services in the future.
I don't understand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
:-) We now know that even the arbitrators hired by Uber don't buy that.
Similar issue with cabs years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
Uber tale (Score:2)
I was an Uber driver when it first came to my midwest town.
Very first ride was a man and woman at a bar.
She was increasingly out of it, eventually passing out, obviously roofied.
He wanted me to take her to her place but she could not tell me where it was.
I dropped them at his hotel. He carried her in at a back door.
Uber provided no guidance. After a few more weeks driving bros that smelled like hot wings,
I had had enough. All for a few hundred bucks.
Because of how the software worked, it felt like a video g
Could and should have been easily prevented. (Score:2)
I guess ordinary customer requests go off into the void without an accompanying lawsuit. But I have wished... and actually asked Uber... that there would be a filter in the app for non-dog-hating drivers & cars for quite a while.
I am not blind, nor is my doggo a service animal. But it would definitely be nice to be able to take her out (Yorkshire Terrier; so she is small enough to hold in my arms for the trip and is non-shedding.) without the ritual of booking, then texting about her and hoping the driv
Cab drivers do the same thing (Score:3)
I do some volunteer work with an organization that trains service dogs. We hear stories like this all the time. You'd be amazed at what percentage of cabbies claim to be allergic to dogs.
Re:Two separate issues... (Score:5, Funny)
Let me introduce you to the concept of punitive damages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages award.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Two separate issues... (Score:5, Informative)
There were 14 instances. 2 of them she got the statutory minimum (4k) for refusal. 2 of them got the standard damage add-on (to 8k) because they were accompanied by discriminatory phrases. 5 were for damages for particularly consequental instances (15k) where a,b) she was late for her job twice (getting fired the second time), c) missed her birthday party, d) was left in a dangerous area and e) was confused by a refusal of the driver to speak to her. 3 were for severe distress (25k) for a) screaming at her while causing her to miss work for the day and the associated wages, b) stranding her on the way to Christmas services and c) lying and claiming he had dropped her off where she wanted but she was nowhere near there. The last two (75k) involved threats of physical harm and being tossed out of the car or actually being assualted and her phone taken away.
Each case was compared to a jury trial to show appropriate damages.
The remainder goes to arbitration fees, legal fees, discovery, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus.
Summed up that way, Uber got off light as hell with that judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
She lost her job.
Re: (Score:2)
But what I don't see, is how she had damages of $1.1 million
At least you admit you're ignorant on the most basic of concepts.
Re: Mentioned this to a blind friend of mine... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True service animals, like what a blind person would have, are extremely well behaved, etc.
The "emotional support" animals on the other hand are a completely different story
Re: (Score:3)
And that's assuming it IS a service animal. Granted, an obviously blind person or wheelchair-bound person's dog is much more likely to BE an actual trained service animal, but there's been a huge uptick in Karens with dogs, cats, guinea pigs, etc, they're either claiming as "emotional support animals" or falsely as "service animals". Those tend to be messy and untrained, and piss (especially cat piss) is difficult to clean from upholstery.
I've seen it first hand. Years ago in a persian rug shop, guy the
Re: (Score:2)
Original story submitter here.
I actually know someone who is blind and has a guide dog (not the person in the article). She has experienced this many times. I think that it is a common experience for blind dog handlers. I would not be surprised to see a flood of similar claims.
Re: (Score:2)
The law is not on your side. The ADA is a thing.
Would it be acceptable in your view to make a decision about whether to pick someone up based on skin color?
As for pet damage: clearly you have no knowledge of guide dogs. Note that a blind handler is still responsible for any damage caused by their guide dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Those added costs and the damage to the car are all part of it, they just aren't often considered when drivers decide to accept the deal Uber is offering. Uber definately doesn't want the potential drivers to think about that because their whole business model is externalizing costs and skirting regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell her to document it (Score:2)
The mere refusal of service is worth $4,000 each time. That's the minimum per instance by federal law. She can contact the same law group and they'll take another run at Uber.
Re: (Score:2)