I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like you might not want to own a driving business or you may want to work with your employer to accommodate your needs. (e.g. by dispatching another driver, etc.)
The drivers should be employees, imo, but the way the company is structured today, they are not.
As a country we decided long time ago, that people who require seeing-eye dogs shouldn't be subjected to substandard treatment by society - as was the case before the law protected the visually impaired.
If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs.
Most dog owners have no control over their animals. I have PTSD from dogs, if dog would touch me, I will go into panic attack, and it will not go well for anyone. It is question of safety.
So I have a question for you. As a driver, do I have a right to refuse a drive, if I am concerned that customer will start licking me?
According to Uber, you need to call up another driver and get them to come take over for you because Uber will not.
If you have an old building it's on the government to provide the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain buildings to standards at the same time.
Every who signs up to be an Uber driver after the signing of the ADA must be capable of transporting service dogs.
It's a shitty policy IMO.
Uber should have to deal with this systemically because it is shitty to just leave it up to the drivers.
Please note that in your example here, it is also shitty for the rider who is expecting to be driven somewhere safely.
A lot of people in this thread are arguing that the driver should be forced to suck it up and I think that's shitty for both the driver's and rider's safety.
It's not uncommon for small towns to have one Uber driver going at certain times. Well that driver can't be the only driver around if they aren't going to take service animals. So Uber would have to tell them that they can't drive unless they are willing to take service animals or there is another driver around that is willing to.
I don't see how this isn't a win-win for them to allow it but give each driver a preference.
> Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals.
You can quote the law all you want, but if you're blind and someone with PTSD is driving (and because they don't have much of a choice job-wise) you're going to be in grave danger.
If you don't want to be in grave danger, speak out against this law. End of story.
That is not an excuse to put other people in grave danger
>End of story.
Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by black people? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a black person in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with black people and being near one sends me into panic.
Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic.