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

The accommodation is for that driver to provide medical evidence when they're employed, and then for Uber to only allow drivers with previously declared allergies to decline dogs.

Since Uber still claims it's not an employer it's going to continue to not provide this, which means they'll face dual claims: from guide-dog owning passengers and allergic-to-dog drivers, both of which are being discriminated against by Uber's illegal practice.

It's not a settled question whether a taxi can refuse service to a person with a service animal to accommodate a driver's allergies. Some jurisdictions allow it, some do not. It may also depend on the severity of the driver's allergy.

No it doesn't. There's no law granting the right to work as an Uber driver.

So does that mean an employer has no obligations give accommodations to the disabled given there is no law granting a right to work at a particular job?

That's the painful thing about the gig economy. They aren't employees, and Uber isn't their employer.

They are independent contractors, that is a separate business entity. Which means, you're right that Uber is under no obligation to give accommodations to their drivers, since they are not an employer.

It's...not a situation I'm a fan of, but it's the current legal status quo.

The 5th Circuit disagrees with this assessment and has allowed independent contractors to sue for ADA violations (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50314-CV0.pdf).

Assuming they are independent contractors, what is Uber's responsibility for discriminatory behavior by its contractors? Would those sames responsibility apply to home owners who hire independent contractors?

Employers must provide "reasonable accommodation" to those with disabilities.

Employers must provide "reasonable accommodation" to their employeers. Uber drivers are not "Employees" of Uber they are Independent Contractors. The driver has the right to refuse letting anyone in their vehicle. The vehicle is owned/leased by the driver not Uber. Uber has very minimal control and liability when it comes to said vehicle.

Gotta love "disruption" /s

> The driver has the right to refuse letting anyone in their vehicle

Whilst complying with the law. Self employment does not exempt you.

A disabled passenger would have grounds for a case against the "self employed" driver if that driver refused carriage, or did not stop when they saw a service animal.

> The vehicle is owned/leased by the driver not Uber

As are many (most?) taxis and private hire vehicles.

> Uber driver with a severe dog allergy has a disability that needs accommodation?

There are three questions there: is an severe dog allergy legally a disability, is the driver in a relationship which entitles accommodation (regular employment would normally qualify, being a contracted supplier of service might not), and is a reasonable accommodation available.

Why would it be any different than a taxi driver in that situation?

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?