Hacker News Reader

Comment by techsupporter | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com