Uber ordered to pay $1.1m to blind passenger who was denied rides 14 times

Its not bad to have a dog in your car so long as the dog isnt the driver. And why can't I drive in the double occupancy traffic lane if my dog is in my car?

 

I’m happy they won 1.1 million. It’s not too much money. That amount is awarded by the judge because the judge wants to kick Uber in the balls. It’s meant to be punitive. Would they change their ways with a $500 award?

The movement to reduce payouts is detrimental to supporting individuals in the quest for Justice from huge corporations.

 

He wasn't "discriminated against" because he was blind. He was discriminated against because he wanted to bring a dog with him in the car.

Maybe some people will decide not to even offer their services as an Uber driver, because they do not want to be forced to have to bring a dog in their car.

I guess you think that makes it "fair", huh? If one person can't use the service, then no one should be allowed.

 

Why should big companies be fined more than small companies? That seems inherently unfair.

Is the idea to try to make it more difficult for gigantic companies to operate and make them have to worry more about lawsuits?

You do realize payouts like this are just going to raise the prices for everyone? How many rides will it take to pay for that 1.1 million, and probably another 200,000 for the lawyer costs?

Maybe the Left wants to shut down ride services like Uber. I suspect that's what they want to do. That's clearly what they want to do in California.
Why Uber and Lyft Are about to Shut Down All Operations in California - August 18, 2020

 

And I'm very sorry for your friend. Being that allergic certainly means that he has to be very careful when going out. And that should include investigating whether or not there were dogs in any uber driver's car.

 

to a blind person, their dog is a mobility aid, and in American the ADA protects them from discrimination

good, if people can't drive without discriminating, then don't drive - their choice

not sure why you snipped this part (this person was denied 14 times)

"people can believe whatever they want, just don't take a job if you can't do it... simple

either Uber allows the blind to pick drivers that do not have these religious beliefs, or they should keep being fined millions - Uber should make it clear when one requests a ride that the person refuses dogs based on their religious beliefs, in fact, Uber should allow you to filter out all these drivers, so they never show up on ones list"

 

That doesn't mean it actually is discrimination against blind people. It would just mean the law defines it that way.
We can play semantics with words all day.

People shouldn't have to let a dog in their car if they don't want to. In fact, I would argue that no one should have to let a person in their car if they do not feel comfortable with that person. It is a safety issue. The anti-discrimination law goes too far.

 

What about the next person who gets in the car, who might have to deal with dog fur, or dog odor, or might even be allergic?

What if the driver is allergic? That sounds to me like discrimination against the driver who may have a medical condition.

Maybe you don't understand allergies. If the dog is even in the car for 20 minutes, that could cause terrible allergies for the person who has to drive that car for the whole day, likely even the day after that.

What if the dog poops or urinates? It can sometimes happen, even though service animals tend to be much better trained than most dogs.

 

So what? How many times were they accepted?

Isn't there some feature on the phone that would allow the blind person to call the driver to ask if they accept dogs? Or some setting someone else can program into the phone that screens out all drivers who will absolutely not accept a dog? That way it doesn't waste the blind person's time.

 

it is discriminatory to deny blind people a ride due to one's religious beliefs

 

they can choose not to ride if they wish, their choice

"What if the dog poops or urinates?"

what if a human vomits, poops or urinates? same thing....

what if they ate peanuts before getting in, a Snickers? the next passenger may have a peanut allergy....

 

The blind person can also choose not to ride. Or can choose not to bring their dog with them if they are planning to use the service. Not all blind people need a dog to get around.

Isn't it rather dangerous for a blind person to be relying on total strangers to give them a ride? At least with a taxi service that driver actually works for an official company.

 

That doesn't even make any sense.



Furthermore, in addition to that, the blind person is not even being denied the ride. Their dog is.

 

I agree, yet some religious people do it, sad isn't it

 

These are the most stupid inane comments.

What do some "religious people" do, exactly? What are you talking about?

 

no, they can't, the dog is their eyes, but I offered an alternative, you just choose to censor it from your reply

"people can believe whatever they want, just don't take a job if you can't do it... simple

either Uber allows the blind to pick drivers that do not have these religious beliefs, or they should keep being fined millions - Uber should make it clear when one requests a ride that the person refuses dogs based on their religious beliefs, in fact, Uber should allow you to filter out all these drivers, so they never show up on ones list"

the blind can not drive, so uber is a great option for them

 

Yet not all blind people use a dog. Some of them can get around without one.

 

That's not much of a choice. How about allow them to do that job and not have to fulfill those requirements?

That blind person is not going to get a ride if people are choosing not to work in that job.

Please explain how this actually "hurts" a blind person.

 

you have to read all the way, you snipped this part

"either Uber allows the blind to pick drivers that do not have these religious beliefs, or they should keep being fined millions - Uber should make it clear when one requests a ride that the person refuses dogs based on their religious beliefs, in fact, Uber should allow you to filter out all these drivers, so they never show up on ones list""

 

But you know a dog is much more likely to.

A driver might also refuse to give someone a ride who is obviously and completely intoxicated. They might be afraid that person could vomit or do something to the car.

 

They are not "religious beliefs". What are you talking about?

Uber should not be fined "millions of dollars". That's ridiculous.
The Left is chasing big companies out of their state.


Oh, I see what you are saying. The company should be able to change their application so the blind person will only get someone who wants to pick them up.
That should be easy to do.

 

the driver is violating Uber policy if they deny a blind person a ride

https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility/service-animal-user-guide/

"State and federal law prohibit drivers using the Uber Driver app from denying service to riders with service animals because of the service animals, and from otherwise discriminating against riders with service animals."

 

they are religious beliefs of Muslims, they are the ones pushing this

just like Christians and cakes

 

I wouldn't allow a dog in my car either, if I was driving. Nothing to do with religious beliefs.


Okay, thank you for explaining. It is true that a large number of these drivers seem to be Muslim.

 

yes, that solves the issue easily

Uber would still be servicing the Blind that way, following State and Federal law, and people could filter out those that decimate against them because of their service dog