If a bus driver is allergic to a dog, then it's usually not an issue because the dog won't be very close to the driver, but in the case of an uber, it could be a real problem.
I'm sympathetic to this person wanting to take an uber, but uber needs to be able to allow drivers to mark their cars as "dog friendly". That way she can get a ride, and allergic drivers won't suffer.
My dog isn't a service dog, he's just a friend, but sometimes I take the street car in to the office and my dog (Elvis) joins me. If it rains, or if i'm leaving in rush hour (when dogs are not allowed on transit here in Toronto), i take an uber or taxi home. Often Ubers reject me due to the dog, but i have no way of letting them know in advance other than by calling as soon as they accept (which i always do, but even when they say "yeah no worries" they often still reject after the call).
I just want to be able to mark that I have a dog with me, and for the uber drivers to know this when they accept. Surprising them with an animal is to no ones advantage.
We're talking about a Beagle, completely silent, normally just sleeps in cars, 22lbs, sits on my lap.
Totally! I would never suggest otherwise. My point is that animals appearing in your rides as a driver shouldn't come as a surprise. Example: UberX, do you reserve a seat for your service dog, or do you just select 1 seat? There should be no ambiguity here, it should be a clear and well understood process for both the rider and driver.
Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?
A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service.
"A driver-partner CANNOT lawfully deny service to riders with service animals because of allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals."
No, it means they have to be prepared for it, possibly with face masks they can wear and epi-pens if necessary. How do they deal with walking down the street when there are dogs coming around a blind corner? Do you expect people to not ever own or walk dogs because people on the street might be allergic? Besides, most proper cabs have bullet proof glass between the front and back seat, so it's probably not really an issue anyway.
"In a
small number of cases, particularly among asthma sufferers,
there can be the risk of a severe asthma attack, and there
have been very occasional reports of the most severe, lifethreatening
form of allergy (anaphylaxis). "
"You may also be advised to use a preventer (steroid) inhaler and nasal spray
starting the day before any unavoidable exposure, for example a planned visit to a home where you know there
is a cat.
As stated above, if your doctor believes your symptoms could be very severe, you are likely to be prescribed
adrenaline (also known as epinephrine) The adrenaline injectors prescribed in the UK at present are
Emerade®, EpiPen® and Jext®."
What happens when multiple people have conflicting disabilities is not one with a well-settled answer, as far as I'm aware. It can create theoretical situations where all the available options potentially result in someone filing a lawsuit.
Well you can reasonably discriminate if the job requires it eg firefighters must be able to pass physical tests some jobs are barred to those with colour blindness for example
The key here being "service animal". Not pets, not emotional support animal... a service animal that has been trained to help with a particular skill or assistance.
Pets and the like are not protected under the ADA.
Service Animal Defined by Title II and Title III of the ADA. A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.
The key here is 'do work or perform tasks'. As a driver, you can ask "What work or task is this animal individually trained for." Their answer will allow you to determine if the animal is considered a 'service animal' under the ADA.
> "A driver-partner CANNOT lawfully deny service to riders with service animals because of allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals."
I interpret this as "if you don't want dogs in your car and don't want to be near dogs, don't become an uber driver in the first place".
People have a choice whether or not to work for uber... If you have a religious phobia of dogs or legitimate allergy there are lots of possible choices of work where you have an extremely slim chance of ever encountering a dog.
Then they should not be driving an Uber. Everywhere else, be that shops, taxis, trains etc, there is a legal requirement to allow guide dogs and other service animals. This is the case in the EU at least.
Allowing drivers to opt in or out of providing adequate, and legally mandated, service should not be an option.
The accommodation is for that driver to provide medical evidence when they're employed, and then for Uber to only allow drivers with previously declared allergies to decline dogs.
Since Uber still claims it's not an employer it's going to continue to not provide this, which means they'll face dual claims: from guide-dog owning passengers and allergic-to-dog drivers, both of which are being discriminated against by Uber's illegal practice.
It's not a settled question whether a taxi can refuse service to a person with a service animal to accommodate a driver's allergies. Some jurisdictions allow it, some do not. It may also depend on the severity of the driver's allergy.
So does that mean an employer has no obligations give accommodations to the disabled given there is no law granting a right to work at a particular job?
That's the painful thing about the gig economy. They aren't employees, and Uber isn't their employer.
They are independent contractors, that is a separate business entity. Which means, you're right that Uber is under no obligation to give accommodations to their drivers, since they are not an employer.
It's...not a situation I'm a fan of, but it's the current legal status quo.
Assuming they are independent contractors, what is Uber's responsibility for discriminatory behavior by its contractors? Would those sames responsibility apply to home owners who hire independent contractors?
Employers must provide "reasonable accommodation" to their employeers. Uber drivers are not "Employees" of Uber they are Independent Contractors. The driver has the right to refuse letting anyone in their vehicle. The vehicle is owned/leased by the driver not Uber. Uber has very minimal control and liability when it comes to said vehicle.
> The driver has the right to refuse letting anyone in their vehicle
Whilst complying with the law. Self employment does not exempt you.
A disabled passenger would have grounds for a case against the "self employed" driver if that driver refused carriage, or did not stop when they saw a service animal.
> The vehicle is owned/leased by the driver not Uber
As are many (most?) taxis and private hire vehicles.
> Uber driver with a severe dog allergy has a disability that needs accommodation?
There are three questions there: is an severe dog allergy legally a disability, is the driver in a relationship which entitles accommodation (regular employment would normally qualify, being a contracted supplier of service might not), and is a reasonable accommodation available.
why is this being downvoted?
saying you think that people acting in a commercial setting (and they just are, even if you consider them self-employed, not employees) should abide by the law regulating commercial activity seems like a valid point...?
are people confusing "they" in the first sentence to mean the customer? or what's the angle here?
Uber's whole business model is finding ways to dodge the regulations. The price of dog handling is priced into regular cab fares. Why should Uber be able to undercut those prices by not providing the same service?
What I've said: They "crowdsourced" making an end-run around existing regulations.
Regulatory authorities were/are not staffed to handle mass, individual violations.
And the Fed's continued to turn a blind eye. Ra-ra, "tech economy".
Like the people made miserable by their new AirBnB "neighbors". (Another "crowdsourcing" effort.) These services have victims. Often the same people regulation was designed, negotiated, and put into place over years and decades, to protect.
--
P.S. Like some unfortunate souls get larger payouts from insurance -- because of misfortune they'd rather have avoided. We pay a bit more for rides and hotel rooms, to make sure those with physical challenges have equal access.
And to make sure those who want to live in peace and safety, aren't victimized by unfettered opportunism.
Regulation goes wrong, sure. But ultimately, it's a process of governance -- here in the U.S., democratic governance. So, govern.
If you pass your governance off onto private entities, well, then that's who will own your government.
Today's election day, in my state. Primaries, here. Turnout will be abysmal. And then, people will complain about what they get. "Government doesn't work!"
I have had to, on the opposite end, had an Uber take me home/cancel after a few miles because the previous rider had been wearing thick perfume and it was too cold for the driver to drive around with all the windows open. If someone with pet allergies responds the same way I did in a closed environment, I have sympathy for them.
This makes sense. If instead of a dog it's a wheelchair, it's undeniably "not your fault" if you car literally can't handle it.
The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped; I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog.
Cleaning aside, I'm surprised that having unsecured bodies in a passenger vehicle is a requisite for being a service provider.
Letting your dog loose in your own car is your own choice, but the trunk exists for unsecured cargo so in an accident, you don't have large objects flying around inside the cabin.
The correct solution would be to identify the handicapped passenger with animal and dispatch an appropriate vehicle. Instead, Uber puts both driver and passenger in danger with this policy.
I see what you're saying, but let's be realistic. Is every Uber/Lyft vehicle going to be outfitted with a wheelchair lift, just in case? That's definitely not going to happen. Most vehicles cannot accommodate a wheelchair, and the ones that can (vans) are very expensive to modify.
I am not completely wheelchair-dependent, but I cannot get into a tall vehicle (like an SUV). Last time I used Lyft, I had to call a vehicle and just cross my fingers that I would be assigned to one that would work for me. If not, I had to cancel and try again. I would much rather have a special vehicle dispatched to me than be assigned a vehicle that is inadequate.
Stereotypes notwithstanding, a lot of regulations/laws do make reasonable tradeoffs. In this case, it appears as if the ADA guidelines do require a taxi driver to help stow a wheelchair but they don't require every cab to be a van equipped with a wheelchair lift. It would be nice if Uber allowed special requests although, of course, the number of options could explode quickly and it probably doesn't fit well with the Uber automated dispatch model.
> The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped
The only way this is generally true of privately-offered public accommodations covered by ADA is that the requirements impose additional costs on business which they pass on to all customers.
> I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog.
The occasional need to do so is a cost of doing business which should factor into the minimum rate that drivers are willing to accept. No specific subsidy should be needed.
the equivalent might be that every uber ride would become .001% more expensive.
For confirmed (as in, by a doctor) dog allergic drivers I'm cool, for everything else this just seems like a cheap excuse and shifting of responsibilities...
I'm sympathetic to this person wanting to take an uber, but uber needs to be able to allow drivers to mark their cars as "dog friendly". That way she can get a ride, and allergic drivers won't suffer.