Texas Woman with Cerebral Palsy: Uber Denied Her Service Over Two Dozen Times

https://gizmodo.com/texas-woman-with-cerebral-palsy-says-uber-denied-servic-1823927550

by uptown • 8 years ago

89 93 8 years ago

The headline should specify that Uber drivers denied service, not the company itself. The drivers violated Uber’s own policy regarding service animals.

jachee• 8 years ago

Was disciplinary action taken against those drivers? If they continued to be associated with Uber, without consequences, then Uber is complicit in their behavior.

Steele’s suit notes that Uber corporate were not especially helpful in resolving her ongoing denial-of-service issues.

Seems like Uber is the ultimate root cause.

lhorie• 8 years ago

This[1] suggests that they do have specialized channels to report this exact type of problem, and that they do investigate and take action on reported cases. It says they also periodically send reminder emails about the legal requirements for drivers.

I talked to a driver once that said that he got suspended when a rider had erroneously reported that he "looked high" (despite that being the only complaint that day despite him having had many passengers). He complained that Uber had not even bothered to hear his side of the story before suspending him and they should've told him to come to a driver center to get tested, instead of just taking someone's report at face value. He said he went to the hospital to get drug tested and had to submit the results to get reinstated. So at least from anecdata, it seems non-compliant drivers do get booted on a shoot-first-ask-later fashion.

It sounds like the problem here is that some drivers still choose to break the law on the 1 out a 1000 chance they run into the service dog situation, even despite all the warnings telling them not to do it.

[1](https://accessibility.uber.com/)

RangerScience4• 8 years ago

It always bothers me when people lay out the defense "but it was their choice".

Sure. It was. It was a choice made within a context created by someone else; to deny the role Uber played in that choice is just as problematic as blaming Uber for the loss of taxi jobs.

black_puppydog5• 8 years ago

This shifting of responsabilities (and, mostly, blame) is exactly what I've come to expect of Uber and it's kind. By "it's kind" I don't mean evil people but rather anything that might describe itself as "Uber for X". This is why I'm so happy about developments like in the UK [1], which forces Uber to assume responsibility in this kind of situation.

Responsibility to the customer is something that should not be delegated IMHO. If you sell someone a TV set including installation and the person installing it fucks up, you deal with the company who sold it (and it's their reputation on the line) and if they want to, they then deal with their employee/contractor. Why should we settle for anything else with Uber?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-lose...

27182818284• 8 years ago

My immediate thought reading the headline was, "Drivers are or Uber the company is?" so there was some ambiguity for me. Especially since I just took a Lyft ride with the parent of someone with cerebral palsy (we talked about it during the ride)

purpleidea• 8 years ago

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.

RangerScience4• 8 years ago

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.

jstarfish2• 8 years ago

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.

black_puppydog5• 8 years ago

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...

gaius3• 8 years ago

it's undeniably "not your fault" if you car literally can't handle it

If you are working as a commercial driver or employing commercial drivers then yes, complying with the law is very much "your fault".

dragonwriter4• 8 years ago

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.

verelo3• 8 years ago

Major frustration i personally experience!

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.

jwilk• 8 years ago

Translation for metric units users:

22 lbs ≈ 10 kg

DanBC4• 8 years ago

There's a big difference between proper service dogs and pets.

oldcynic2• 8 years ago

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.

black_puppydog5• 8 years ago

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?

pkaye3• 8 years ago

But that brings up the question if an Uber driver with a severe dog allergy has a disability that needs accommodation?

paulcole• 8 years ago

https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm

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."

https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/

lotsofpulp2• 8 years ago

Does that mean people who are allergic to dogs aren't allowed to be taxi drivers?

walrus01• 8 years ago

"A driver-partner CANNOT lawfully deny service to riders with service animals because of allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals."
https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/

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.

sparrish2• 8 years ago

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.

gaius3• 8 years ago

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?

pasbesoin• 8 years ago

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!"

Well, that's because you didn't.

ddunkin• 8 years ago

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.

RcouF1uZ4gsC2• 8 years ago

With the rise of the gig economy, I suspect that the ADA will come under severe attack in the next few years. My guess is that most AirBnb apartments don't really have ADA compliant accomodations. For example, many second floor apartments only have stairs without elevators or wheelchair ramps. In addition, there have been some high profile cases such as Berkeley removing free, public lectures because of ADA violations https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-...

as well as the abuse by some of bringing companion animals onto airplanes.

With independent contractors making a large part of the work force, accommodating is harder for individuals than for companies, and so political momentum may build up for repeal of the various laws.

DanBC4• 8 years ago

I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK people with disabilities are tired of asking nicely and have moved onto using the courts to enforce the long-existing laws.

With cars it's very clear: you can't refuse to take guide dogs.

pjc50• 8 years ago

That's a pretty bad outcome, since (if "gig economy" businesses drive out regular ones) it will have the effect of making it much harder for disabled and elderly people to travel or even leave the house.

bobthepanda• 8 years ago

That's always been the concern of the gig economy. People too poor or with some other qualifier that prevents them from using gig services get stuck with a crappier and crappier public option as people with the means to do so flock to gig services and lose their appetite for funding public services they don't use.

bunderbunder2• 8 years ago

This is a big part of why I bristle when Uber fans claim that ride sharing makes public transit obsolete.

Families, too. Taking kids on the bus or train is fine. If I were to try and use Uber, though, I'd need to also lug along 60lb worth of car seats. One car seat might be manageable, but even then I'd have to deal with the drivers giving me a hard time about installing it.

brainbrane• 8 years ago

I suspect that the ADA will come under severe attack in the next few years.

I'm not worried. No politician will carry the flag of denying rights for people with disabilities.

rrdharan• 8 years ago

In the USA we elected as president a politician who openly mocked a reporter with a physical disability. It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to imagine someone carrying exactly that flag.

s73v3r_3• 8 years ago

I am, especially with this administration slashing regulations under the guise of being "business friendly".

commanderjroc2• 8 years ago

Don't forget the ADA also protects disabled veterans.

The political fall-out would be terribad.

bsedfsf• 8 years ago

Try getting an uber with a child seat.

xbeta• 8 years ago

Don't Uber already provide that? I saw it in NYC (maybe they pick few cities now to test this out)

https://help.uber.com/h/3abcbae1-132b-42a9-8277-0dab00fa3879

csixty4• 8 years ago

Only in NYC so far, last I checked.

My wife knows a taxi service here in Boston that we use when we're travelling with the little guy. Last time we flew, we were picked up in a black car with tinted windows and leather seats. There was a stylish black carseat in the back for him ready to go. Sadly, he's still too young to feel like a rock star.

black_puppydog5• 8 years ago

just to prevent more "but the driver has an allergy, too" comments:

yes, some might. and we can have a debate about that. but most don't, and an allergy is explicitely not the reason all of the drivers in this case gave. so it doesn't apply here.

UncleEntity• 8 years ago

The difference is that at some point in your Uber "career" you will be expected to transport someone with a service animal and you can't legally refuse to transport them. The way the law is written you can't even ask to see proof it's a service animal, if someone tells you it's a service animal then it legally is a service animal to explicitly prevent this form of discrimination.

If you can't perform all the legal requirements of a job then there's a case to be made that you probably shouldn't be doing that job.

s73v3r_3• 8 years ago

Taxi drivers can't do any of that either, so I don't see the problem.

black_puppydog5• 8 years ago

I agree with the last part at least. What I mean is "we can have a debate about whether the current legal requirements need exceptions for eg allergic drivers".

odammit2• 8 years ago

When booking a ride, Uber needs three toggles:

- Do you a service dog

- Do you want AC

- Do you want to talk to the driver

Edit: I can’t format.

commanderjroc2• 8 years ago

That could lead to discrimination if someone see's a person has a service dog.

The whole point of the ADA is to not treat people with disabilities as if they are second class citizens.

odammit2• 8 years ago

Of course. But that driver could have a disability - their allergy if it’s severe.

Maybe it shouldn’t be a toggle, maybe it’s a part of both the driver and users profile so a driver can’t descriminate and instead it’s more of a matching algorithm.

ThrustVectoring• 8 years ago

It's interesting that the lawsuit is against Uber, and not the "independent contractors" that fulfill the service on Uber's behalf. Likely because there's no money in suing drivers, while Uber itself has billions.

poster123• 8 years ago

If it takes more time to get a passenger with cerebral palsy in and out of the car, then a driver who picks one up is losing money compared to transporting a regular passenger. If the government wants encourage ride-sharing services, instead of punishing low-paid workers for doing what's in their interests, it should give drivers bonuses for transporting passengers who present difficulties.

My wife is a doctor. She does not get an extra fee for treating non-English speaking patients, but she needs to pay a translator, and the appointments are longer. She is effectively punished for seeing patients who don't speak English. By the same logic as above, either the insurance company or the patient should pay an extra fee when a translator is required. Otherwise, doctors will be motivated to avoid working where lots of patients need translators.

forapurpose• 8 years ago

Perhaps we want to help people with greater needs, and not stick them with higher prices everywhere they go - in part because people with greater needs often have fewer resources.

Every business must pull its weight in contributing to society and make some sacrifices; otherwise society, the economy, your community wouldn't function. Your wife, I, and everyone reading this benefit from the sacrifices others have made over centuries. We are specks of dust on the shoulders of giants, so personally I'm happy and proud to be able to give a little.

My wife is a doctor. She does not get an extra fee for treating non-English speaking patients

Maybe she should get a smaller fee for treating easier patients, and not only those who are easier to communicate with but those with easier conditions to treat, those who are more agreeable, those who can comprehend medical issues more readily, those who are on time, those who can afford medications, devices, tests, treatments, etc.

Every business has a variety of customers of differing levels of difficulty, and generally charges them all the same; it averages out. Go buy some clothes; if you take more of the salesperson's time, they don't charge you more.

SamReidHughes• 8 years ago

Uber is apparently the best way for this woman with cerebral palsy to get around, given how much she uses it. Even with some drivers deciding that they don't want to take her.

Texas Woman with Cerebral Palsy: Uber Denied Her Service Over Two Dozen Times

Related Stories