Uber Settles Lawsuit Over Service Animals For The Blind

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, May 2, 2016.

  1. HardOCP News

    HardOCP News [H] News

    Messages:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    It's good to see that this has finally been settled. While I can see some Uber drivers not wanting to have dogs in their vehicles, most smart drivers know that a cheap queen sized sheet easily keeps hair / dirt off you seats when you have service dogs in your vehicle, is reusable and keeps your customers happy. Simply pull up, put the sheet on, put passengers in vehicle, take the sheet off when trip is over and everyone is happy and no one is in violation of the law.

    Uber has agreed to take affirmative steps to prevent discrimination against blind riders who have guide dogs with them across the U.S. According to a press release from the Federation, this is the first nationwide class-action settlement of its kind against an app-based transportation network company. Under the settlement, Uber is promising to end that kind of discrimination: the company says it will take steps to inform drivers about their obligations to transport riders with service animals, and will require new drivers to expressly confirm that they understand their legal obligations to do so.
     
  2. HardOCP News

    HardOCP News [H] News

    Messages:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    This is actually something my mom used to do, she would carry her own sheet for her service dogs as a courtesy to taxi drivers.
     
  3. Methadras

    Methadras [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,134
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Wonder what will happen if a muslim driver won't allow any dog in his car?
     
  4. TwistedAegis

    TwistedAegis [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,958
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Or if the bogeyman doesn't allow adults in his?
     
  5. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,674
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    So the article starts off specifically by saying "people with service animals" and then goes to say blind people with dogs. The majority of people I see with "service animals" are not blind, they often claim some sort of insecurity or some other bullshit that somehow gets covered under ADA guidelines. It really has gotten to the point that companies don't have policies that bar animals even if they aren't wearing service animal vests because the potential lawsuit if they bar one that is actually a service animal is more than they really wish to do....

    Bottom line too many fuckers bring their little pocket dogs everywhere, leave you're god damn animals at home if you're going out to do human things in the world.
     
  6. Methadras

    Methadras [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,134
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Muslims are real, boogeymen are not. Thanks for trying though.
     
    Flexion likes this.
  7. Trepidati0n

    Trepidati0n [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,816
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    I just can't believe it had to go this far to do something
    ADA doesn't give two fucks about religion and this has been upheld by the law. Simply put the ADA trumps religion every time and the courts support it. And to think..that ADA was actually one of the first times in history America was at the forefront of these kinds of rights which influenced the entire world.
     
  8. dangerouseddy

    dangerouseddy Gawd

    Messages:
    611
    Joined:
    May 16, 2007

    afaik muslims are allowed to keep service animals, although I'm not sure they can keep dogs as pets that whole area seems fuzzy.
     
  9. damicatz

    damicatz 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,708
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Natural inalienable private property rights trump the ADA. What if the driver is allergic to dogs?
     
  10. Trepidati0n

    Trepidati0n [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,816
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Non sequitur? I was specifically talking about religion.
     
  11. damicatz

    damicatz 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,708
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Private property rights are inalienable and trump the ADA. The reason is not important.

    I own my car and I have the right to determine what does and does not go into it. No state has the legitimate authority to change that.
     
  12. FrgMstr

    FrgMstr Just Plain Mean Staff Member

    Messages:
    48,110
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
    What if a blind transgender person gets in your car with a service dog and asks you to bake them a cake while they go to the bathroom? Then what?
     
    /dev/null likes this.
  13. Trepidati0n

    Trepidati0n [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,816
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    AGAIN, I WAS TALKING ABOUT RELIGION IN REGARDS TO ADA. How is your point NOT non-sequitur since you are NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION. Secondarily, if you are a driver for UBER, your car is no longer 100% covered under "private property rights". Again..most people know, "private property" is not a trump card you can pull anytime you "don't like something"...and the courts will state that too. Otherwise we would still have businesses saying "no blacks allowed".
     
  14. damicatz

    damicatz 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,708
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    A person has the right to deny service for WHATEVER reason they want, no matter how stupid. Religion included.

    You can cite all of the statist pieces of paper you want but that doesn't change the fundamental natural law right of a property owner to control their property. Natural law trumps the law of man.
     
  15. Flexion

    Flexion [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,588
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
  16. Spidey329

    Spidey329 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,677
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    I kinda feel that Uber is just a law firm who rents out their drivers, because they have so much pending litigation.
     
  17. bob

    bob 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,971
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    w h a t