Re:Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
by anonymousab on Monday April 05, 2021 @12:33PM
(#26701164)
I think a deathly allergy would qualify as a 'legitimate safety requirement'. There are also situations in which the ADA considers an allergy itself to be a disability, though the given examples are usually around food allergies.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
by pvarangot on Monday April 05, 2021 @01:53PM
(#26702207)
I don't think a deadly allergy to dogs exists as a condition on its own, you would probably also have a whole lot of terrible respiratory issues when exposed to a lot of other allergens. Someone with a deadly allergy to dogs will probably already require accommodations on the job that shield them from close interaction with people on its entirety.
Re:Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
by Ensorceled on Monday April 05, 2021 @03:44PM
(#26703665)
Such a person would not be able to drive a taxi/uber regardless of accommodations. I used to have a severe cat allergy that resulted in an asthma attack when exposed to, for instance, a colleague covered in cat hair. Their cat was in another city at the time.