> Is a waiter with a really bad peanut allergy required to serve a guest a dish with peanuts in it?

I'm having a hard time constructing a scenario in which the only way to accommodate a guest with a disability to the same level as other guests is for a waiter with a peanut allergy to serve a dish with peanuts in it.

In this hypothetical restaurant, presumably the waiter cannot serve this dish to /any/ guests. And the ADA doesn't entitle you to have a restaurant make food to your specifications, as far as I know.

Well, I think the ADA only applies to businesses with more then 15 employees. The idea is that if you have a business that large, even if one person has a problem with dogs, not all 15 (or more) will, so you should be able to accommodate and provide service.

So in your example, the business should have a different waiter/waitress provide service.

Ah, I see. That seems reasonable, honestly. So in that case, Uber should be able to just assign another driver. But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. However, I don't think Uber should be forced to provide service just because they technically can. If there are no drivers at all in your area, they'll tell you that (Or charge an exorbitant fee for someone to drive in) and you won't be able to take an Uber. It's not a requirement that they give you a ride no matter what.

> It's not a requirement that they give you a ride no matter what.

But it is a requirement that they not discriminate against customers with disabilities. Charging an "exorbitant fee" for a driver who would tolerate a service animal would be a form of discrimination, even if that fee was the organic result of a pricing algorithm.

There is no perfect solution to this problem, however, people in general - even those who enforce the law - tend to be flexible. The situation described in the article describes a person who was badly treated by Uber drivers and would probably have tolerated a service in which the drivers treated her like anyone else even if technically Uber did not tick every single box of the ADA. It might even be counter productive to force Uber to provide a non-discriminatory service to everybody everywhere.

The law sets a high standard that we should all strive to meet but the courts tend to be full plaintiffs who have been wronged by companies failing to provide even the bare-minimum service. This appears to be the case here and we should probably focus on how to grasp the low hanging fruit before trying to come up with the "perfect" solution.

> But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands.

Yeah in this case, a driver may have to take a service dog even if they have fear or an allergy, or Uber could be sued again. IANAL, but this is my understanding.

I am seriously doubting an allergic driver would be forced to take a passenger with a dog. Their immediate right to life trumps the ADA.

There's more interesting arguments to be made, like you can't ask the driver to provide proof of their allergies, and so on.

Does there exist such a thing as a life threatening allergy to dogs?

The rules are pretty clear that an allergy isn't a good enough reason to deny service, but it says that Uber should try and accommodate employees that don't want to be around dogs for whatever reason: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

I'm not sure it matters if the allergy is life threatening or not. Again, you can't question the validity or scope of someone's disability under the ADA.

You need to read the rules more carefully: they mean Uber, in as much as it is in control of the rideshare service, can't deny people on that basis. The individual drivers can and their employer must accommodate them under the ADA.

If the drivers aren't employees and are self employed then as they are a business of less than 15 employees they can refuse anyone they want for any reason.

This type of compelled behavior seems like an oversized club to wield for the problem at hand. No individual should be forced to do something that will be harmful to them just because another individual belongs to a particular group.

No individual is being forced. Uber is being forced. Uber's the one that's gonna have to pay another $1 million in damages or whatever if they don't.

Fair enough. A lot of comments are talking about forcing drivers, even with allergies or phobias, to take any fare requested by a disabled person. It's definitely up to Uber to figure out how to comply and how to incentivize. Forced labor of individuals definitely isn't the way to do it, and is antithetical to modern principles of government.

If the Uber drivers are independent contractors. Wouldn't they be a business under 15 employees, thus not required to be ADA compliant?

Well apparently not, or Uber would have won this court case, I think.

Uber has more than 15 employees. As such they need to be compliant, their contractors do not... It's weird situation, but applies to any areas where we are dealing with small subcontractors.

But it makes sense, Uber makes an app that offers a service or has to design the UI and UX of the app so that its customers can have the service that is required by the ADA. How they handle this with their contractors is none of the Uber customers' business.

Restaurants don't have to serve peanuts at all. They have to allow guide dogs.