|
|
National Federation of the Blind sues Uber over refused rides, abuses
|
|
|
|
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ride sharing service Uber is being sued by the California branch of the National Federation of the Blind for mistreatment of the disabled. The complaint, filed in the Northern California District Court, alleges refusal of rides to blind persons with service dogs, abandonment of blind travelers in harsh weather conditions, and cancellation fee being charged after being refusing to transport blind riders. Additionally, there is one report of a Uber ride share driver putting a service dog in the trunk of the car, with the driver refusing to pull over and rectify the situation when the passenger realized where the dog was riding.
A statement about the lawsuit by Uber claims that the company fires drivers who refuse rides to disabled, or won't transport service animals. Without addressing specifics, the company writes that "the Uber app is built to expand access to transportation options for all, including users with visual impairments and other disabilities. It is Uber's policy that any driver partner that refuses to transport a service animal will be deactivated from the Uber platform." Uber has allegedly refused requests by the National Federation of the Blind to work out a solution, hiding behind the fact that drivers for the service are contractors and not employees.
Uber's solution so far is to let drivers know about the service animals or any disability before the pickup. The company claims that driver performance metrics are constantly evaluated, and driver suitability is assessed through rider feedback.
Uber is, however, on the hook for the violations of the American Disabilities Act, because the California Public Utilities Commission has ruled that the company acts as a taxi dispatch. Under the ruling, the company may not discriminate against the disabled.
(
Last edited by NewsPoster; Sep 13, 2014 at 05:45 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
A traveler of any physical capacity has to bring suitable gear with them for the weather and their traveling companions. If it is a mother and child, she needs to bring a blanket and a child seat with her to keep the car clean and keep her child safe. I don't see much of a difference for a blind person who has to bring a blanket to protect the car and a muzzle to keep the dog's mouth off of the car's interior.
Are Uber drivers also supposed to have extra strong seats and suspension for riders who are handicapped because of morbid obesity? What about people who want a ride and have a pet with them? Are they to expect that they don't have to provide something to keep the car clean and safe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Totally agree. Ever since the passage of that stupid, ill-conceived ADA (as well as those travesties we call "federal anti-discrimination laws"), this country's been going downhill. If I wanna make money by acting as a taxi, I should be able to refuse rides to anyone I want, including those dirty, fat, minority, blind people with their nasty-ass dogs. If I want to pick up only skinny, clean, white people, why should anyone try and stop me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW NC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Diablo: you prove our point. We wouldn't ride with you, either....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
On the other hand, I can't imagine Apple Store serves only the people of their choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Hillbilly Geek
Diablo: you prove our point. We wouldn't ride with you, either....
DCQ is being sarcastic...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm surprised Uber doesn't just pass the lawsuit on to the driver. After all, their contract stipulates that they carry no liability for the ride itself (one of the issues that is leading to Uber being closed down here: you need to provide proper insurance if you wish to run a commercial public transport service - which Uber claims it isn't doing, passing the buck to its drivers, who certainly aren't properly insured, and aren't usually aware of their responsibilities and liabilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
@Spheric Harlot:
That may yet happen. Then again, it's possible that the buck stops with Uber when it comes to this kind of violation. You can put anything you like into a contract, but some things are not actually enforceable in the courts — and if your contract is in conflict with the law, it's the contract which is set aside. (And sometimes the contract may be broken entirely by this, sometimes not.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
@coffeetime
There are people who have been banned from Apple Stores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
@macjockey
Why were they banned?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Every store proprietor reserves the right to refuse service.
If somebody is drunk and unruly or threatens violence, they are removed from the premises. Depending on the situation, they are banned from the store. This is totally normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: in front of my computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
I hope everyone here is sophisticated enough to understand that a business owner does not have an unlimited right to refuse service, as well as the concept of 'protected classes'. It hurts my brain to read comments from morons who insist business owners can run their enterprise any way they please. Circling back to the original topic, if you offer a ride to someone out of the goodness of your heart, that's one thing. If you voluntarily accept (but do not request, explicitly or implicitly) some sort of compensation for your trouble or time, you may still be on solid legal grounds depending on in which state or city you happen to be. However, if you regularly give rides in return for compensation, and the ride itself is predicated on receiving compensation, you're operating a taxi service and you are (and ought to be) subject to all of the regulations regarding taxi services, which exist for damned good reasons that I won't go into here. Suffice it to say that if I operated a burger joint, I would be none too pleased if the county looked the other way at Joe Blow selling burgers out of his back yard when I am required by law to meet all of the laws and regulations regarding food safety, workplace safety, and taxes. If this bothers you, go move to that libertarian paradise of Somalia where you can truly do as you bloody well please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
Lets be clear about a few things. The lawsuit isn't about service dogs tearing up a car, the suit is about drivers for Uber who are bound by California law refusing service because of them.
This isn't about people who have abusive return histories being banned from a shop. This isn't about punks kicking in glass at an Apple store. This is about discrimination by a business against the disabled, which is illegal. Full stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hayesk
|
|
Oh FFS, ElectroTech, service animals are trained. They're not going to eat the upholstery. What a lame, made up problem to excuse awful behavior from Uber.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status:
Offline
|
|
Talk about being blindsided...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|