I think you said yes to the parent comment but are not actually saying yes. Saying that "people with dog allergies cannot drive with Uber" is discrimination; allergies are also legally considered disabilities under the ADA[0]. Plus why would it be nessary if only a small portion of people have animals, and an even smaller portion need them for disabilities?
What should happen is allow drivers to get a doctor's note that marks their car as unstable for allergies (that way they can't make it up to discriminate). Also allow customers to mark themselves as needing to avoid animals or needing animal-friendly cars. You don't even have to show this information to either party: Uber can automatically choose the right car.
The law doesn't say every single driver has to pick up people that need service animals. It just says reasonable accommodations must be made.
But then it would be in the full right of someone with dog allergies to refuse service to someone with a service animal. Their being able to live completely trumps the person's ability to get a car. Then the customer who was refused service would probably feel discriminated against (because Uber did not make reasonable accommodations to prevent this) and we are back where we started.
What should happen is allow drivers to get a doctor's note that marks their car as unstable for allergies (that way they can't make it up to discriminate). Also allow customers to mark themselves as needing to avoid animals or needing animal-friendly cars. You don't even have to show this information to either party: Uber can automatically choose the right car.
The law doesn't say every single driver has to pick up people that need service animals. It just says reasonable accommodations must be made.
[0] https://www.aafa.org/asthma-allergies-and-the-american-with-...