Realistically, yes? If their allergies are such to the point that they cannot be physically in the presence of a service animal for any length of time, they may be required to decline the fare and the income.

We impose a lot of duties on people who are employed in the service of the general public. Humans are messy, unpredictable, inconsistent beings with unique needs so, yes, it is possible that two humans will be a mismatch for each other in the public sphere.

The law, and society in making that law, has generally decided that the right of a person with particular needs--such as a service animal or a carseat--outweigh the rights of someone to ply a trade in a customer-facing role. And, given the level of discrimination that people with those needs experience on a daily basis, I happen to think this is a fair trade-off. The person with the needs may not have a choice, or may have fewer choices, than the service provider.

I think you said yes to the parent comment but are not actually saying yes. Saying that "people with dog allergies cannot drive with Uber" is discrimination; allergies are also legally considered disabilities under the ADA[0]. Plus why would it be nessary if only a small portion of people have animals, and an even smaller portion need them for disabilities?

What should happen is allow drivers to get a doctor's note that marks their car as unstable for allergies (that way they can't make it up to discriminate). Also allow customers to mark themselves as needing to avoid animals or needing animal-friendly cars. You don't even have to show this information to either party: Uber can automatically choose the right car.

The law doesn't say every single driver has to pick up people that need service animals. It just says reasonable accommodations must be made.

[0] https://www.aafa.org/asthma-allergies-and-the-american-with-...

And Uber has been forced to pay up the $1.1M precisely because they haven't bothered to make any of these reasonable accommodations.

The ADA does not apply to independent contractors - Uber does not have to accommodate driver disabilities AFAIK.

But then it would be in the full right of someone with dog allergies to refuse service to someone with a service animal. Their being able to live completely trumps the person's ability to get a car. Then the customer who was refused service would probably feel discriminated against (because Uber did not make reasonable accommodations to prevent this) and we are back where we started.

So it’s not fair that some cars can’t accommodate all passengers of all sorts with any various disability, but it’s fair to deny employment to those with some sort of disability (animal allergies). Odd perspective.

Animal allergies (as opposed to asthma triggered by animal dander) is only considered a disability is it actively affects your ability to breathe or otherwise function in pretty basic ways. So, yes, under the ADA in the US, denying someone employment with allergies is fine but refusing to give rides to service dogs is not.

Of course, a simpler solution would be to have Uber choose an appropriate car that was willing to give rides to service animals.

Outside of service animals (actual service animals not "support animals") I think it should be perfectly fine to reject transporting peoples pets.

I also think it should be fine to have a "no children" policy, we have all kinds of business we do not allow children in, and personally i would like to see more business adopt a no children policy.

No, Uber simply needs to accommodate a passenger with a service dog, by assigning the closest non-allergic driver to them, and the driver not refusing service.

I would suggest that if the allergies are sufficient enough to reach disability, that instead of "Uber needs to assign the closest non-allergic driver" (because the ADA doesn't require that a passenger state that they have a service animal) ...

Rather, Uber needs to offer accommodations to drivers. Modification of the vehicle so that the driver and passenger areas are separate and the there is sufficient air filtration.

This way, Uber would be handling both disabilities appropriately with the ADA by providing the respective accommodations.

This sounds nice in theory, and, sure, it will solve the situation with a driver having a dog allergy.

But what about a more common and realistic scenario, where the driver doesn't have the allergy, but the next Uber passenger does (the one who gets into the car after the passenger with a dog leaves)? Do you propose to perform full sterilization of the vehicle after every passenger with a dog (and I mean an actual full sterilization, not just wiping the seats clean)? Because otherwise, the dog dander particles will still be present in the vehicle in some capacity, thus causing an allergic reaction in the next passenger who has allergies.

I think the challenge for Uber is that (despite being illegal) it still makes way more sense for a driver to pass up a $10 fare than spend 15 minutes in close proximity to an animal they're allergic to followed by however long it would take to sanitize your car afterwards. If drivers were employees, then Uber could just say "do it or you're fired" but as independent contractors the situation is much harder.

This.

Blind passengers need to have reasonable access to cars. If Uber wants to play in that market, they need to figure out how to accommodate those passengers. If the driver needs a screen, or a stack of N95 masks, to avoid allergies, that should be Uber's responsibility to provide.

What stops every driver from checking the "I'm allergic to dogs" box?

A premium that is paid by the passenger with a dog.

Ideally that premium should mostly go to the driver, minus the regular Uber cut.

That is specifically and explicitly prohibited by the ADA. The service may not charge more for an individual with a service animal than an individual without.

If you can't fulfill your duties as an employee/contractor due to a medical reason, you should be able to document that reason. If a driver can find a doctor to testify that they are allergic to dogs, the conversation ends there.

Something that comes as a surprise to many Europeans on HN: healthcare in the United States is not free. Doctor's notes cost money. Uber drivers are, by definition, poor, and do not have health insurance.

Should drivers with life-threatening allergies be expected to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars extracting a deposition from a medical professional to avoid being killed by a dog?

Great, I guess we'll have to gate ADA compliance on overhauling the entire US healthcare system, first. Heaven forbid someone has to do work in the same environment as a blind person with a service animal.

Until we do, are there any other forms of work that you feel that an employee/contractor/etc. should be able to shirk by claiming that they have a medical condition, without providing a shred of evidence thereof?

A medical note for a chronic, life-threatening condition is a sufficient, and reasonable requirement, and is good from years to decades.

I agree with people with service dogs should be picked up and blind people.

But my thoughts drifted to what if a driver without allergies picked up a passenger with a service dog, that driver would then presumably need to spend time vacuuming the car such that another passenger with allergies isn't also impacted?

That could be a reasonable accommodation. Another reasonable accommodation would be to send another car.

Imagine if the Uber driver himself had a dog, and showed up to pick an allergic passenger up. What would the reasonable accommodation be in that case? Depending on how severe an allergy is, no amount of vacuuming is going to make a ride in such a car pleasant for the passenger.

In the UK, a taxi/private hire vehicle driver can get an exemption if they are medically unable to take assistance dogs, or help passengers in a wheelchair.

My local council's guidance on the topic:

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/licences-permits/exemption-wheelc...

Everyone seems to be avoiding the real question. When is Boston Dynamics going to disrupt the guide dog industry?

UC Berkeley is apparently looking into it: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2273390-robot-guide-dog... .