
Uber refuses to serve blind users with service animals - bontoJR
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/blind-users-with-service-animals-uber-refuses-to-serve-us/
======
imgabe
_n its motion to dismiss, Uber argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and
that as a private company, it is not bound by the provisions of the ADA_

That doesn't even make sense. Any place that accommodates the public is bound
by the ADA. Most buildings are owned by private companies, but they are still
required to be ADA-compliant.

~~~
ndarilek
You might be astounded at the lengths businesses go to to win ADA lawsuits. My
girlfriend uses a wheelchair, and after months of negotiation with the clinic
where her doctor works, she brought suit against them for not providing her
with accessible tables, or indeed an accessible bathroom to provide urine
samples in. She's an activist who routinely gets arrested for acts of civil
disobedience. Anyhow, the clinic's lawyers asked her lots of questions about
her prior arrests and criminal record, as if having one permitted them to
violate her civil rights. Unfortunately it was a video deposition, so while
her lawyer could object strenuously and while the judge could (and ultimately
did) ignore the lines of questioning, they still grilled her about irrelevance
in order to justify not providing the accommodations.

The absolutely insane thing about all of this is that the clinic already _had_
most of the accommodations in question. They had accessible tables already,
they just didn't teach front desk staff about them and had policies set up
that required doctors to work exclusively in specific areas. The only
significant change was a bathroom remodel, and they're not a small clinic by
any means. But the fact that they dragged her criminal history into the light
made absolutely no sense, compounded by the fact that said criminal history
involved getting arrested specifically to fight access violations like that
one.

Not at all surprised by Uber's tactic here. Sickens me that we still have to
fight very basic battles like these 25 years after the ADA was passed. I just
want to grab some people and shake them until loose braincells fall into place
or something.

Edit: Oh, right, and opposing counsel wanted the passwords to her Gmail and
Facebook so they could read anything she wrote about the clinic in question.
They also considered expanding that request to anyone she may have spoken
to/emailed about them (I.e. me as her boyfriend.) I wish they'd have tried
that so I could pull in counsel of my own.

~~~
Agustus
There needs to be more for this story to make sense. ADA compliance is not
retroactively required.

Whatever building she was going to passed the ADA requirement at the time of
construction. Businesses are loathe to remodel buildings because of ADA
compliance [1]. Therefore, the negotiations that your girlfriend was engaging
in suggest that these were not negotiations, but trying to accommodate her
issues. At which time, your girlfriend can take her business elsewhere or try
to work within the parameters of the buildings ADA requirements at the time of
construction.

Alternatively, you can file a frivolous lawsuit to try and force a business to
fix the issue.

A good defense attorney would bring forward past activism to prove that the
plaintiff's background suggests a history of causing issues for businesses.
Who knows, this may show that she is one of the disability filers who just
does it over [2] and over in what some claim are legalized extortion [3]. The
defense is merely trying to show that she may be associated with such groups,
seek counsel from these groups, and other items. That being said, do not give
those passwords unless they get a subpoena, because they do not need it unless
the judge agrees.

All this being said, I do agree with you on the ADA compliance. I walk through
stores and bring up with employees that certain areas are not ADA accessible,
tight walkways or weird floor movements, I AM LOOKING AT YOU FORMER HOLLISTER
LAYOUT. The problem for actual disabled people are the jerks who take
advantage of ADA to force compliance issues beyond a reasonable doubt and in
the case of the Uber, I understand that people might not want fake service
animals in the car tearing up their luxurious leather interior.

[1] [http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan/19/disability-
lawsui...](http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan/19/disability-lawsuits-
bill-abuses-system-california/)

[2] [http://legalnewsline.com/issues/tort-reform/254776-eight-
pla...](http://legalnewsline.com/issues/tort-reform/254776-eight-plaintiffs-
filing-61-percent-of-americans-with-disabilities-act-lawsuits-in-pennsylvania)

[3] [http://overlawyered.com/2014/04/nbc-affiliate-california-
ada...](http://overlawyered.com/2014/04/nbc-affiliate-california-ada-claims/)

~~~
ndarilek
The ADA is indeed retroactive if the modifications would not pose an undue
burden on an establishment's business. In this case, I assure you that the
undue burden clause does not apply. There is also a difference between
negotiating in good faith and negotiating at the barrel of a lawyer, which is
what these guys did. There is also a precedent in these kinds of negotiations,
as I myself am experiencing in another issue that may ultimately need to go to
court, where "negotiations" often involve making vague promises that are never
fulfilled in order to keep you hoping that one day a business will comply.
Sometimes you just have to show up with a bigger stick to get folks moving.

The "jerks filing disability lawsuits" trope is one that the media likes to
trot out for a good story, and which should really go away. The ADA in states
other than, I think it's California, only allows you to sue for compliance,
not for additional damages. I'm not saying that you're claiming this, but it
isn't easy or rewarding to bring one of these lawsuits because all you can
hope for after hours of work is to be able to use a bathroom somewhere you
couldn't before. My GF was indeed subpoenaed, and was reduced to tears just
because she wanted an accessible table and bathroom at her doctor's office.
The "take your business elsewhere" argument is also a tough one to uphold when
a) even hospitals have inaccessible bathrooms in their own rooms, so there's
no guarantee that you'll _find_ an accessible business on your next time out
and b) you've already forged a relationship with a doctor who understands your
needs. FTR, she had already taken her business elsewhere several times that
year by virtue of needing tests done at other facilities, and in addition to
the same "no accessible tables" argument she was almost dropped by staff who
refused to listen to her and who insisted on doing things their own way. Being
able to take your business elsewhere and having a better outcome is a point of
able-bodied privilege.

------
unwind
_For example, Leena Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver
forced Ms. Dawes’ guide dog into the closed trunk of the UberX sedan before
transporting Ms. Dawes._

Whoa, that's just terrible and should (in my non-US opinion) be cause for
reporting the driver in question to the police for abusing the dog.

~~~
griffinmahon
Shouldn't the act's terribleness, or if it actually qualifies as abuse, be
related to how long the ride was? Some people put their dogs in cages at
night, for instance.

~~~
mikhailt
No. You do not put a dog in an unsecured place like the trunk of a stranger's
car. Keep in mind, we're not talking about regular standard taxis, these are
strangers working on behalf of Uber with no regulations. A bump on the road
could harm the animal if there are sharp objects not secured in the trunk.

Cages are built to secure the animals, trunks are not, especially ones that
does not belong to you.

How about I shove you in the trunk instead of the backseat if the ride is only
for 2-3 seconds. Are you okay with that?

------
jasode
The knee jerk reaction is to defend the rights of the disabled (blind people
in this case) but I'd like to ask if there's _any_ fair argument to be made
for the drivers at all?

For example, if an Uber driver has dog allergies[1], should blind service dogs
override that? Should the blind person's right to mobility trump the driver's
discomfort? The discomfort could also continue (shedding, dander) _after_ the
blind passenger has left the car. Would it be ok if Uber had an option for
driver profiles for drivers to check "I have dog allergies." ?

I'd anticipate the reaction to be "we shouldn't allow Uber to legally offer
that option because every driver would check it to keep dogs out of their
cars". I'm not sure if that would be true. Wouldn't there be a good percentage
of drivers who would love to welcome dogs into their cars? I don't know. I'm
not an Uber driver so I don't have any vested interest either way. Just
curious what people think.

Also, let's compare the situation to renting apartments or housing. It is
illegal to disallow service dogs even if the landlord has a "no pets" policy.
The law allows for the disabled have an exemption from such policies. But, the
landlords also have an exemption from that exemption _if the housing is owner-
occupied_.[2] In other words, the landlord can't prevent the service dog from
living at the rental condo out on the beach but the landlord can prevent the
dog from moving into an upstairs loft in his house.

Presumably, most Uber drivers are driving their personal cars and not rotating
the driving among a fleet of rental cars from the taxi corporation. Is there a
parallel between renting owner-occupied housing and driving a personal car for
money? Is there a parallel between Uber-to-personal_car and Airbnb-to-
residential-home? Consider that a car is a much more intimate space than a
house.

[1] [http://www.webmd.com/allergies/guide/dog-
allergies](http://www.webmd.com/allergies/guide/dog-allergies)

[2]
[https://www.airbnb.com/support/article/898?topic=273](https://www.airbnb.com/support/article/898?topic=273)

~~~
LordKano
I was just thinking this.

I am allergic to animal dander. I can't be around cats, dogs or rabbits and
the like without sneezing, wheezing and coughing.

Why should someone else's disability take precedence over mine?

Yes, I'm sure that some drivers would falsely claim to have an allergy just to
keep animals out of their cars but some passengers would also lie about their
pets being service animals just to get them in the vehicles.

~~~
scarmig
This applies to everything, though: could an employee in a McDonald's sue for
it being an unsafe workplace in that it provides access to service animals,
even if the employee has a violent reaction to animal dander? I don't know the
exact reason why (I'd guess, "you can choose not to work there," but who
knows), but certainly not.

~~~
LordKano
An employee could sue if McDonald's refused to provide reasonable
accommodation for their allergy.

Additionally, there's a world of difference between a 1500 square foot fast
food restaurant and the interior of one's vehicle.

------
scarmig
Of note: this is a recurring issue that has decades of history. See, for
instance,
[http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Taxicab_Repo...](http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Taxicab_Report.pdf?docID=242)

Another issue that got some press for a couple years after 9/11 is Muslim
drivers refusing to let guide dogs into their cars. (Aside: this would
probably be legal under all the religious freedom restoration acts going
around.)

The best thing about Uber consolidating the taxi industry is that it
rationalizes these practices and makes them legible to democratic processes
and regulation.

~~~
fennecfoxen
> (Aside: this would probably be legal under all the religious freedom
> restoration acts going around.)

Under most of the RFRAs, a government with a _compelling interest_ (e.g.
allowing the blind to take taxis) would have to use the _least restrictive
means_ to achieve it. In the case of something like a car service company or
Uber, this could mean permitting individual drivers to decline the hail, but
guaranteeing that _someone_ will be available to answer it. Then, if all goes
well, the blind person gets his or her ride, the religious person goes about
his or her religious life without _losing his job_ , and everyone's happy.

Consider also Utah, which permits a county clerk to opt out of officiating a
same-sex marriage out of religious objections... _if_ a substitute is
available.

(For cities with more street-hailed cabs, in the style of London and New York,
this may not be enough, but enforcement of _any_ rules on street hails is
problematic, as anyone who has tried to take a NYC taxi somewhere inconvenient
is able to tell you.)

------
wehadfun
Uber gets a lot of negative headlines. Are the people running it really
assholes?

~~~
fennecfoxen
jbob2000's dead comment here said,

> No, but people don't like change.

Please. Why can't it be both? It's pretty clear to me from things I've read
here that the guys in charge of Uber are a bunch of jerks. It's also pretty
clear that the various crackdowns on Uber at the behest of the local taxi
lobby+ to "protect" me from being able to take a cheaper, better ride home
from the airport... they're also a bunch of jerks.

(+ and/or the local mafia, depending on your jurisdiction)

------
dbg31415
Australia is ahead of us here.

[http://www.news.com.au/national/taxi-driver-told-blind-
woman...](http://www.news.com.au/national/taxi-driver-told-blind-woman-put-
guide-dog-in-the-boot-or-get-out/story-e6frfkvr-1225867465241)

$740 AUD fine for refusing to transport a dog.

Taxis in the US already face suspension of license if they refuse service
animals in most states. Only fair Uber be held to the same standards.

------
tomasien
The Uber driver app and orientation reinforce over and over that you must
serve people with service dogs. Just FYI.

~~~
dfxm12
Are the app and orientation the same if you drive a black car or UberX, or one
of Uber's other services?

------
calciphus
Interestingly, I've travelled around San Francisco with a friend with a seeing
eye dog. Taxis would stop, look at us, and drive off. One yelled "no pets" at
her as she tried to get in, and took his foot off the brake so the car rolled.

At least with Uber you can go after the drivers and file complaints.

------
dbg31415
A few things:

* Service animals aren't just dogs. Miniature horses, pigs, cats, whatever. Don't forget Emotional Support Animals. (Why are those important? Because they enable people with special needs / mental illness to function in "normal" situations.)

* Uber drivers don't want animals in their personal cars, got it. But it's a choice to be an Uber driver, not a choice to be disabled or need an emotional support animal. When we think about this, we should think about who has the choice here.

There's an easy fix.

Default every Uber drive to accept all animals. Allow the Uber drivers to opt
out, and in so doing lower their rank in search and have a badge next to their
name, "Restrictions Apply" or something along those lines. Let their customers
choose if they want to give money to people who are discriminatory. People
with the disabilities shouldn't be forced to check a box or ask for special
assistance, that's why you would default all drivers to accept pets and
explain why it's important. Being able to provide a service to all users is
important, but for fringe groups there isn't always an economic drive to do
so. Like providing a seat belt, training with how to handle service animals
should be mandatory. (The one driver put a service dog in the trunk?! Please
tell me he isn't working at Uber any more.)

Personal note: Ever tried to take a kid who has special needs to see the Grand
Canyon? What started out as a dream trip was soured by people in hotels making
a huge stink about Emotional Support Dogs, and reminding us at every turn that
we had a special needs kid with us. People could have been kind, they could
have pulled us aside, or read the notes from their boss that we were coming...
but every time we hit a new hotel people would inevitably yell at my cousin,
who has DS, because he would bring his dog with him to the lobby or near the
pool, or even on a trail. "No pets allowed!" Even though we called ahead, the
staff on the ground wasn't trained to deal with service animals. Without his
dog, the world was a scary place form my cousin; Emotional Support Dogs are
like hearing aids or canes or a pair of glasses that way.

Anyway if you see someone who has a dog in a place you wouldn't normally
expect to see a dog, please assume they have a good reason for it. You don't
know how much damage you can do with one comment, or one harsh tone. We're all
just trying to get through the day as best we can.

~~~
extra88
No, only dogs and miniature horses are service animals under the ADA. FHA and
Air Carrier Access Act include other animals but don't cover other forms of
transit, which would include Uber. Also, "Dogs whose sole function is to
provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under
the ADA."[1]

I'm not familiar with the standards by which a dog or any other animal is
determined to be a reasonable accommodation for a disability. I know they're
not limited to physical impairments.

[1]
[http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm](http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm)

~~~
dbg31415
So you're saying autistic people, veterans, and the disabled should pretty
much just stay home?

Not really sure what you're trying to say here, but it sounds very much
against therapy animals. With a dog, people who are suffering can take part in
"normal" activities. Like a hearing aid, wheelchair, or glasses. Without
protection to bring their dog they have to have the conversation, "Hey I'm
defective, let's all spend time talking about it before I get in the car..."
That's messed up. You shouldn't put people who need a therapy dog on the spot
like that -- their lives tend to be hard enough.

~~~
extra88
No, I'm correcting the information about what the ADA says. _I 'm_ not saying
I'm against therapy animals but the law seems to say places of public
accommodation do not have to allow animals used for that purpose.

------
raverbashing
Upon signup Uber should present options, like "user is accompained by a guide
dog"

Then drivers are informed and free to accept or refuse such requests.

Edit: I don't get the hate, when you buy a plane ticket _it 's the same
thing_, it has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to deal with being
able to accommodate them.

So if the person can't fit a service dog in their car, they won't have them
service that call but send another car that is better for the guide dog.

~~~
DanBC
People with disabilities already face significant discrimination. Why should
we make that discrimination easier?

(Edit: I meant to upvote you, but it seems I accidentally downvoted. Sorry. )

~~~
scuba7183
Because I don't want a dog in my car

~~~
scott_s
Then don't use your car as a taxi.

------
Agustus
I am excited that more people can learn the crazy world of business compliance
and its insanity, especially within the ADA compliance.

What a great incentives lesson:

* You have a business that wants to make sure that employee cars are in tip top condition.

* You have an employee who wants to maintain tip-top condition.

* You have a user who would like to board their service animal

* There exists a certain percentage of service animals that their service animal status is for emotional stress and does not have an animal trained to the level of a blind user. These animals tear up a car, urinate within a car, etc. Witness the "service animals" on airplanes defecating and rerouting a plane. [1] Getting the "service animal" status entitles owners to a lot of benefits [2].

The owner does not want their car damaged by the "service animal" and lose the
ability to provide services to future clients. The future clients will give
bad ratings for the physical appearance of the car and take the owner's
ability to work out of operation. If this issue was brought up by the taxi
industry, I want to elect that person to the National Security Council,
because this is a brilliant solution to bring down Uber.

1\. [http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Dog-Poo-Forces-
Phi...](http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Dog-Poo-Forces-Philly-Bound-
Flight-to-Make-Emergency-Landing-Report-261252191.html) 2\.
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/08/03/flie...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/08/03/fliers-
scam-airlines-pets-service-dogs/13325733/)

~~~
erroneousfunk
Service animals trained for "emotional stress" are not service animals under
the ADA. It's become really popular lately to register your dog as a "therapy
dog"/"emotional support dog" or even just claim that it's registered as a
therapy dog in order to get it into restaurants, however, this registration
legally means nothing, and gives the animal no special rights of entry.

Service dogs must be trained to perform a task (not just alleviate stress with
their presence) for a very small list of tasks defined by the ADA. Business
owners have a right to refuse entry to "emotional support animals"
[http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/psychiatric-
service-d...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/psychiatric-service-dogs-
emotional-support-animals-access-public-places-other-settings.ht)

~~~
scarmig
Some businesses are required to allow entry to "emotional support animals"[1],
though not under the ADA. The FHAA requires landlords, dormitories, apartment
complexes etc. to provide reasonable accommodation for ESA, and the Air
Carrier Access Act (which I hadn't heard of) requires it of airplanes.

[1] I really hate these things--maybe 5% are valid, but the rest are bunk.

