Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > National Federation of the Blind sues Uber over refused rides, abuses

National Federation of the Blind sues Uber over refused rides, abuses
Thread Tools
NewsPoster
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2014, 01:10 PM
 
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. )
     
ElectroTech
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2014, 03:10 PM
 
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?
     
DiabloConQueso
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2014, 05:32 PM
 
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?
     
Hillbilly Geek
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2014, 08:58 PM
 
Diablo: you prove our point. We wouldn't ride with you, either....
     
coffeetime
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2014, 09:48 PM
 
On the other hand, I can't imagine Apple Store serves only the people of their choice.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2014, 12:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hillbilly Geek View Post
Diablo: you prove our point. We wouldn't ride with you, either....
DCQ is being sarcastic...
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2014, 05:13 AM
 
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.
     
The Vicar
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2014, 08:29 AM
 
@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.)
     
macjockey
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2014, 09:10 AM
 
@coffeetime

There are people who have been banned from Apple Stores.
     
DiabloConQueso
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2014, 10:37 AM
 
@macjockey

Why were they banned?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2014, 11:37 AM
 
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.
     
climacs
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: in front of my computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2014, 01:29 PM
 
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.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2014, 01:35 PM
 
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
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2014, 10:48 PM
 
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.
     
msuper69
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2014, 12:39 AM
 
Talk about being blindsided...
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:51 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,