Following the above, wouldn't this be any job that requires interacting with other people? So basically any job?
There's not too many jobs where a dog might end up right behind you for extended periods of time in an enclosed space.
> Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.
If the person has a dog allergy, Uber should make the appropriate accommodations (possibly by allowing them to assign another driver to the fare) - however, they cannot refuse the fare.
If someone has a problem with dogs, or anything else, then they are not qualified to perform a job that requires interacting with dogs, or whatever their particular disability involves.
They aren't being denied a right to work out of discrimination or prejudice. They simply can't do that job.
Here's the difference between that and prejudicial discrimination:
If someone does have either an allergy or tramatic stress issue with dogs, or whatever else, but for some reason they really want to do this particular job anyway, they still can. IF they want to deal with their problem theirself somehow, with allergy meds or meditation or plain iron will or whatever, as long as they can and do the job properly, no one will prevent them.
Discrimination & prejudice is I don't care how good you might be at the job, you still aren't allowed to do it (or are significantly and artificially disadvantaged) simply because you're female or black etc.
The drivers just don't like that the dogs mess up their cars and the smell displeases the next customer and affects their rating and tips.
The answer to that is tough shit. Don't take a job serving the public if you only like some people and not others.
This is the general store mysteriously always being out of flour or beans for the black family. Your freedom not to interact with people you don't like and who aren't violent or otherwise dangerous, comes only in the form that you are free not to operate or work for a business that serves the public. Go be a comic book artist or accountant or something where you don't have to let any filthy dogs into your house as part of your job.
An allergic reaction is not just a "problem with dogs." An allergy to dog hair is no more or less important than any other disability. The law requires reasonable attempts to accommodate the individual with a service animal, and the individual with an allergy. In the case of Uber or Lyft, it seems relatively trivial (to me) to classify drivers with allergies, riders with guide dogs, and to prevent those two groups from connecting for a ride.
The real problem here is that Uber/Lyft don't want to take any action that would further blur the line between employee and contractor.
Seems like this logic doesn't apply to payment processors, web hosts, and anyone else who doesn't want to deal with free speech that they find offensive. Bake the cake, right?
Yes. Bake the cake. The only legal culpability is to NOT do so.
I guess the difference in this case is targeting someone due to a disability/protected characteristic, compared to some other reason. One fair thing might be Uber subsidising rides of disabled people with guide dogs (in the sense that it pays drivers a bit more to account for cleanup costs etc). I dunno if they can be expected to do this, but such costs probably won't show up on their bottom line and the PR of doing that alone would probably make up for any costs.
"Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility."
https://www.thetransportationalliance.org/news/adanotice.pdf
In Sweden "our ADA" only applies to lead-dogs and they have a special "blanket" and most people that want to bring their dogs into restaurants and hotels don't have licensed dogs. But still, if all the "dog rooms" are taken then the deep cleaning required is a pretty big cost to bear and I have seen customers turn in the door when there was a dog in the restaurant.
So it is not a simple issue and I sympathize with the small independent contractors. Uber, not so much.
Those are not covered by the ADA: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
>Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA?
> A. No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. However, some State or local governments have laws that allow people to take emotional support animals into public places. You may check with your State and local government agencies to find out about these laws.
My experience (of 1) is also that guide dog owners are mostly reasonable, willing to come to a compromise that works for everyone and have very well behaved dogs. The woman I helped was more then happy to take a window table right next to the terrace door and let her dog stay right outside the window.
"Support dog"-owners (the handful I've met) are in my experience pretty unreasonable and unpleasant to deal with, have a "customer is always right"-attitude and their dogs are pretty universally badly behaved. I've had a group of seven try to argue that one guy in a wheelchair needed his support dog inside the restaurant while the dog was pulling on his leech and jumping on me.
Other dog owners i Sweden are also pretty nice to deal with. They usually keep their dog tied outside, in the car (with the backdoor open if they have crates) or ask if they can bring their dog through the restaurant to the terrace and eat outside (even if it is cold).
If it has 15 employees or more, then the law assumes that it's reasonable for the company to provide service (e.g. by reassigning a non-allergic employee to work with a customer who has a service dog) except where it would demonstrably create an undue hardship.
Some drivers may lie, but if you require even a simple doctor's note I think that would deter a lot of people from bothering, given the rarity of encountering a service dog request.
Uber did try what you said as a defense, and they lost, so it seem courts think that because Uber is a huge company, with much more than 15 people, it's on them to find a way to be compliant with ADA.
Weather or not drivers are subcontractors or not doesn't even come to play.
Because lets face it. If they didn't thats such a huge hole, that in a lot of cases corporations would be able to structure themselves in a way that they could avoid that.
Sure, which clearly matters of Uber drivers are employees, but less so if they are independent service providers.
I can only speak for myself, but I used to be scared of most dogs except guide dogs. Guide dogs always seemed to have a calming effect on me (for some reason).
If you want to argue that this condition should mean she can't be an Uber driver I can see your point, but the comparison to race or sexual orientation is pretty absurd. I'm not aware of anyone who has panic attacks when seeing a human of another race or orientation.
>> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go."
> 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.
You should take that into consideration before taking on a job that might require you to drive around dogs. 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.