Uber Settles Lawsuit Over Service Animals For The Blind

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
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.
 
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.
 
Wonder what will happen if a muslim driver won't allow any dog in his car?
 
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.
 
I just can't believe it had to go this far to do something
Methadras said:
Wonder what will happen if a muslim driver won't allow any dog in his car?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Trepidati0n said:
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.
Click to expand...

Natural inalienable private property rights trump the ADA. What if the driver is allergic to dogs?
 
Trepidati0n said:
Non sequitur? I was specifically talking about religion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
damicatz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Trepidati0n said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
I kinda feel that Uber is just a law firm who rents out their drivers, because they have so much pending litigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top