back to article Uber alles-holes, claims lawsuit: Taxi biz sued by blind passengers

Taxi hire biz Uber is being sued in northern California for allegedly violating the civil rights of blind people. A complaint filed by the National Federation of the Blind alleges that blind passengers who ordered Uber X taxi rides in the US state were illegally discriminated against or mistreated by the firm's drivers. …

  1. Notas Badoff

    Ought to be so easy...

    "Did you contract to give X. Y. Z. a ride on such-and-such date?"

    "They said you refused to provide service when you saw the service animal - explain please"

    "And the 'missed connection' on such-and-such a date?"

    "That is outside the rules and guidelines you agreed to"

    "You are no longer a driver for Uber."

    Do that for 5 or 10 drivers, and now you've got a pool of trustworthy drivers! If you don't select out the bad drivers, it all goes down. You have to choose, or you'll have no choice.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ought to be so easy...

      It is not just Uber. In the UK taxi drivers from one of the Indian sub continental countries regularly refuse to have dogs in their cabs and nothing is ever done about it because of their ethnicity.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ought to be so easy...

        a lot of rotten/uncivil/evil behavior seems to be excused under "cultural values" and "ethnicity" in Europe and America these days. Behaviors often explicitly illegal under the law of the land. Citizenship used to require an understanding that the laws of the new land superceded the laws of the old land.

        Now, even citizenship is hardly required, much less a desire to follow the law of the nation.

        1. Tapeador

          Re: Ought to be so easy...

          "a lot of rotten/uncivil/evil behavior seems to be excused under "cultural values" and "ethnicity" in Europe and America these days. "

          Fuck off back to the Daily Mail and Telegraph.

          1. dan1980

            Re: Ought to be so easy...

            @Tapeador

            Your type of response is exactly the reason why we can't have constructive discussions about race and multiculturalism and what it means for everyone.

            In Australia, Tony Abbott (whom I am not a fan of, to be clear) recently copped a lot of grief for talking about people getting behind 'Team Australia'.

            It was received as being jingoistic and racist.

            The problem is that we are all so scared of being seen as racist that we rush to denounce anything that has the barest hint of it. Thus, when someone points out that some Indians/Pakistanis are scared of or distrustful of dogs, we scream them down. Why?

            It's fucking well true. I could parade a dozen Indians/Pakistanis who own or are absolutely fine with dogs and react no differently than anyone else. BUT, there are many from the subcontinent who, due to either religion (some Muslims believe that touching a dog will make them 'unclean'*) or simply the circumstances of their upbringing (in many parts of the subcontinent, dogs are rarely pets and are those seen are likely to be wild) have a noticeably different reaction to dogs than those of us who have grown up with them.

            So what do you do about that?

            This is where multiculturalism is not so flash. My own, personal, view is that living in a society with a variety of different races and cultures is a great opportunity to learn from each other and adopt what is best. In other words, to become one big blended culture.

            In the case of, say, reaction to dogs, I would argue that it is better to adopt the position of not being afraid of tame service dogs than to adopt the position of being scared or distrustful of them. I think the former will be the richer culture than the latter.

            As for the comment you were specifically commenting on, what was so bad about it?

            The poster wasn't saying that people of other cultures and ethnicities are 'rotten', 'uncivil' or 'evil'. What he was saying is that when people from other cultures practice such behaviours, it - at least sometimes - gets excused as "cultural values".

            That doesn't means that the same or similar behaviours aren't common to 'white' people as well or that the vast majority of foreign people living in 'western' nations aren't perfectly normal people that are good, law-abiding, well-integrated and general stand-up people.

            No, what the poster is saying is that when certain behaviours come from someone of a different ethnicity or culture, that behaviour is more likely to be excused or ignored than if the same behaviour came from a westerner.

            An example is the treatment of women by some individuals from some ethic and religious groups. I do not mean any physical or even psychological abuse, but simple the respect and position accorded to women inside that culture. The idea of the poster - I believe - is that if a white, native, westerner were to forbid his wife from having a job, driving a car or leaving the house by herself then we, in greater society would condemn him as being a domineering chauvanist and some would call it an abuse relationship. The same situation in a Muslim household is far, far more likely to be excused or ignored, for fear of appearing culturally insensitive or of trying to force our values onto others.

            We believe in equality for women, just not enough to risk appearing insensitive. We believe young girls should be sent away to have their genitals mutilated but we don't stop it. We believe in free speech is essential for our way of life but for it ends up taking second place to making sure we don't hurt a religious group's feelings. When disenfranchised young people who grow up in poor areas without work or much chance at a good future riot after heavy-handed police tactics, we must 'get tough', but when it's a different cultural group, we must 'understand'.

            It's about applying the same rules and same standards for everyone, even if some people will cry that it is insensitive.

            In the UK (and Australia), service dogs are allowed anywhere that their owners are. They are allowed in taxis and hire cars and if you operate one then you are OBLIGED to take the person and the dog. There is no loophole for being scared of dogs or being worried you will become unclean. If you can't accept that, then DO NOT BE A DRIVER!!!

            It's got nothing to do with race or religion in the end - if your personal preferences or beliefs prevent you from fulfilling the legal requirements of your profession then you either need to change your beliefs or your job.

            These are discussions that need to be had in the open, without fear that people like you will jerk your knee and scream 'racist!'.

            * - The idea is similar, religiously, to forbidden foods but is misplaced - it is only contact with a dog's saliva that is unclean.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ought to be so easy...

        Also the same subcontinent bus drivers refuse to allow dogs on

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ought to be so easy...

      Considering they are basically Gypsy cabs of the 21st century it ought to be expected.

      Not that it's acceptable, at all and any fines are probably well deserved.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Sounds very suspicious ..

    If I were cynical, I would suspect this is a put-up job on behalf of the conventional Taxi Industry ..

    1. Thorne

      Re: Sounds very suspicious ..

      I suspect you're right. Why would a woman keep going with Uber after being refused twelve times. Once yes. Twice maybe. Three times, you'd use someone else. Twelve times is a setup.

      1. dan1980

        Re: Sounds very suspicious ..

        What difference does it make?

        Unless the suggestion is that the Uber drivers would have responded differently if it was a more legitimate passenger, I fail to see what the point is.

        That this may have been a 'sting' operation by the taxi industry doesn't alter or excuse the behaviour of the Uber drivers one iota.

        1. MrDamage Silver badge

          Re: Sounds very suspicious ..

          It may in fact be an internal sabotage attempt by the taxi industry, especially given the "common knowledge" of organised crime syndicates controlling a bunch of taxi tokens and companies.

          Get a few of their drivers to work for Uber in their spare time, and deliberately perform stunts like this in order to bring down a competitor from within.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sounds very suspicious ..

        Depends on what percentage those 12 represent. As a blind woman, she may use taxis everyday, multiple times per day. 12 bad experiences during 200 uses of Uber might not be so bad.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        Re: Sounds very suspicious ..

        What was Übers reaction when these disgraceful incidents were reported to them. At least one of which, stricking a blind person with an open car door, sounds like a matter for the police. They did file a complaint with Uber and the police over these incidents, didn't they?

    2. Ian Michael Gumby

      Re: Sounds very suspicious ..

      And the moon landing was faked.

      Do you know how many rides the woman had with Uber?

      So could it have been that she's relied on Uber and of the times she's called, Driver X has selected 12 of those times?

      Keep in mind that blind people don't drive so they are more than likely going to need transportation. So at a minimum 2 times a day if they are just going to and from work.

      Again here's where this so called disruptive service flagrantly disregards the law.

      No set up required.

  3. dan1980

    Part of the point with Uber is that, as private hire services, they are bound by different regulations than 'normal' taxi drivers.

    Uber drivers are also, on average, far more independent than their taxi equivalents.

    This kind of thing should be an expected risk in the system so Uber should have measures in place to stop this. Perhaps they do, in which case I would expect that the drivers had been at the very least suspended for several weeks.

    The structure of Uber means that they have to be vigilant for issues such as these and fast and strict in how they address them.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      @Dan

      Doesn't matter.

      Go and read the ADA. There's the Federal Law, then each state has their own, and most cities even have their own. Actually its not just ADA but also Fair Housing and other laws that deal with discriminatory practices and what constitutes a protected class.

      If you decide to drive for Uber, then you have to follow the law. It is Uber's responsibility to make sure that their drivers know the law and that they follow the law. In these cases, both the driver and the service are on the hook. (The driver is not an Uber employee and has no shield.)

      Suspension of the driver doesn't go far enough. Drop the driver from the service. Period. That driver is a risk for repeat offenses and there are more drivers willing to do this.

      1. dan1980

        Re: @Dan

        @Ian Michael Gumby

        You misunderstand me.

        What I mean is that the nature of Uber means that these types of incidents are more likely to happen. They happen to people catching 'real' taxis too. My assertion was just that the more independent nature of Uber - personal vehicles without company uniforms or branding or dispatch operators and with much more freedom given to the drivers - getting drivers who break the rules will be more likely.

        Uber won't want to admit this publicly, of course, but they should at least be prepared for it internally and make sure that they are even more vigilant and responsive than a traditional taxi company in identifying any breaches and punishing them appropriately.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm going to catch hell for this...

    ..but assuming that it isn't a sting, what kind of people would so strongly object to dogs in their car? My evil mind comes up with one group in particular, and that same group is often stereotyped as your typical taxi driver...

    1. Frank Zuiderduin

      Re: I'm going to catch hell for this...

      You're absolutely right. It's the same with 'regular' taxi drivers, at least in this country.

    2. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: I'm going to catch hell for this...

      I could reasonably accept drivers who were allergic to dogs - but then they should specify that they can't take assistance dogs.

      1. glen waverley
        FAIL

        Re: I'm going to catch hell for this...

        Or , if allergic to dogs, don't work in a job that has a legal requirement to carry assistance dogs.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I'm going to catch hell for this...

          Or just take an antihistamine

        2. DN4

          Re: I'm going to catch hell for this...

          > don't work in a job that has a legal requirement to carry assistance dogs.

          Or ensure that people allergic to dogs are considered a protected group... And lawyers will rejoice.

        3. Tapeador
          FAIL

          Re: I'm going to catch hell for this...

          "Or , if allergic to dogs, don't work in a job that has a legal requirement to carry assistance dogs."

          Let me get right what you've just said: "if you're disabled, don't work in a job which as a legal requirement to do things which your disability prevents you from performing".

          I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the "legal requirement". It's not absolute. It just typically requires that you make reasonable adjustments.

        4. John Robson Silver badge

          Re: I'm going to catch hell for this...

          Since it's not an "on the street hailing" service there is no issue with people setting their own conditions - and saying "I can't take dogs because I'm allergic to them" is a reasonable restriction.

          It simply means you won't get chosen for that fare.

      2. Curtis

        Re: I'm going to catch hell for this...

        But would the drivers have to provide proof of their "allergy"? Granted, I'm in the US (and I apologize for my horrible grammar, I'm a graduate of public education), but there are many times I see "persons of faith" claim that they are "allergic" to pork or alcohol to avoid it.

        But as far as Lyft, Uber, or any of the other hacks are concerned, this just goes to show why I won't use them. If I need a taxi, I call a local, well known company that has exacting standards and licenses.

  5. Velv
    Big Brother

    As a concept, services such as Uber have their merits.

    But let's not forget that Taxi regulations date back to the 17th century when rules were brought in to ensure fair and prompt service by the carriages servicing the public for hire. Uber et al may claim to be outside the current taxi regulations in the relevant jurisdiction, but they won't be for long - the rules will be changed (and are probably long over due an overhaul).

    Ultimately the protection of the public will prevail, and it's the evolution of that protection of the public that has led to the regulated taxi services in place today.

    1. Richard Jones 1
      Unhappy

      @Velv

      I am not at all sure you are anywhere near right on that point. In many if not all jurisdictions some recent laws will issue instructions over and above those in older laws. Health and Welfare and disability are two such law 'families' where the new requirements can and will modify existing practice. Now I am no lawyer but I would strongly suggest that trading standards in the UK, or the disability folk might have a strong thing or two to say. I doubt that they would be any less interested in other places unless the local sheriff or mayor in the US has a different axe to grind. If there is clear evidence of an offence in English law it can be an offence not to report the issue. While the mileage in other locations may be different one should go with all force after law breakers. Video and witness evidence can be most useful.

      Sadly Rochdale has shown that one does sometimes have to hit the authorities over the head with something very, very hard as there they did tend to arrest the messenger rather than deal with the offences in a timely fashion. Still, even in Rochdale there is now the appearance of action. Interestingly that is also reported to have involved 'taxi' drivers though not from Uber.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Sting" or not ...

    surely it makes no difference *how* a company is discovered to be breaking the law ?

    Even if the lady in question did deliberately make 12 journeys with the express intention of being able to report on dodgy behaviour, it's no different to [in the UK] trading standards using underage kids to winkle out retailers who sell alcohol and/or tobacco to minors.

    Speaking as someone whose wife uses a wheelchair, I am well aware of private hire drivers and their attitude to the less able. There have been a few times when drivers have refused point blank (despite having been told by despatch) to take the wheelchair, which folds up smaller than a suitcase.

    Yes you can report the driver, and the company. Which will be about half an hour out of your day for what ? Judging by the way our complaints were handled it's just to get a template "we take very seriously etc etc".

    Tip for anyone in a similar situation. When you book, it's not a wheelchair. It's a couple of large suitcases. Mysteriously, there's *always* room for them.

    1. Cyberelic

      My dog is Murphy.

      There are an awful lot of recent immigrant wierdos, the ones with strange clothes and head coverings. They often refuse to use the lift when the dog is there, and will even dash about and make squarking noises whilst huddling in corners. I find this rather insulting. The dog is a very tame and friendly person, and has as much right as anyone to use the lift. Particularly as he currently has a broken leg.

      1. JimmyPage Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        @cyberelic

        The Daily Mail site is thataway ---------->

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: My dog is Murphy.

        > The dog is a very tame and friendly person,

        Nope. A dog is not a person, it's an animal. You want animals in your house or car, that's up to you. Don't try and bring them to my house, or put one in my car.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Mushroom

          @AC Re: My dog is Murphy.

          And if you don't want service dogs in your car, then don't drive for Uber or any of those other car services.

        2. pompurin

          Re: My dog is Murphy.

          @AC above.

          I wonder if you would feel the same way if one of your family was dependent on that dog for their quality of life.

      3. dan1980

        Re: My dog is Murphy.

        @Cyberelic

        What the hell are you on about?

        If you find a foreign-born person's reaction to your dog insulting, just think how they might feel about your description of that reaction. Squawking? Really?

        If your point was that some immigrant populations react differently to service animals than you as an individual, or even 'Western' populations as a whole might, then say so plainly.

        Indeed, it might have been a valid point if you followed it by explained that in your opinion, companies like Uber need to be aware of the cultural differences and sensitivities and make sure they provide better education and clear guidance to their staff as to what is expected on them and make sure that they are comfortable with the requirements of the job.

        Perhaps you could have gone on to say that the failing in this area may be due to an inherent 'Western' view in management where they didn't even understand the nature or the problem.

        But no, you went with squawking weirdos in strange clothes huddling in corners. Love Britain, vote BNP!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    On the Internet, no one knows...

    > one passenger had her dog forced into the trunk of a car

    On the Internet no one knows that you've been forced into the trunk of a car.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Islam and dogs

    It could have something to do with the religious/cultural background of the taxi drivers.

    Many adherents of Islam believe dogs to be innately haraam, which is loosely translated as 'sinful'. This is not quite correct, as there is no prohibition in Islam on owning dogs used for hunting or guarding, but there is a prohibition on keeping dogs as pets. Unfortunately, this subtlety is not always appreciated, which means that many people (not all) who are Muslim or come from a Muslim culture will do their best to avoid any and all contact with dogs leading to the problems seen.

    However, the Shariah Council in the UK ruled in 2007 that Guide dogs are NOT haraam, as they are working dogs, not pets, and indeed at least one blind Muslim person uses a guide dog, even taking it into a mosque:

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/sep/25/disability.islam

    Similarly the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore regards Guide Dogs as allowable:

    http://www.muis.gov.sg/cms/oomweb/irsyad.aspx?id=18367

    But the problem is, these rulings do not set a binding precendent on all Muslims (even in the UK and Singapore), and there are other groups that disagree:

    http://guide.muslimsinbritain.org/guide9.html

    It is usual for different groups of imams to have different ideas about what is permissable under Islam or not. This is one of the glories and frustrations of Islam.

    It's not an easy issue to solve.

    1. Cyberelic

      Re: Islam and dogs

      Yep, that will be it. Good to hear at least one guide dog is allowed into a Mosque. And thank you for a clear explanation.

      1. Cyberelic

        Re: Islam and dogs

        I've seen some people lately crossing the road to avoid the dog when walking down the street.

        Dunno about taxis, used one twice recently in France and that went well (for the dog).

        Meanwhile I often encourage children to play with the dog. Get em young!

    2. Dan Paul

      Re: Islam and dogs

      The very idea of what is Haraam (unclean) borders on the idea of "blue laws" (laws typically that have a religious basis) that are in many cases unconstitutional in the US.

      "Keeping Kosher" has little practicality in a developed country either. Both practices are mostly related to survival without refrigeration and modern healthcare.

      It is the 21st century people. This sort of stuff has no reason to be present any longer in a developed country. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and don't force them on others.

      If you were to try to ride in a taxi or other conveyance with a service dog of any kind and were refused, the driver has NO excuse, haraam, religious, Uber, Yellow/Black Taxi or not.

      If you can't adapt to societal norms, then leave.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Islam and dogs

      It's not an easy issue to solve.

      Yes it is. Grow out of the medieval superstitions.

    4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: AC Re: Islam and dogs

      "....Many adherents of Islam believe dogs to be innately haraam....." Yes, but the problem is this is not the first time, by a long chalk, that Muslim drivers have refused service to passengers because of religious beliefs. And it's not just dogs but also alcohol - http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=2827800&page=1

      The problem is that, every time passengers complain, they are automatically labelled as racist (see mindless posts about the Daily Mail above). This is the standard defence mechanism for Muslims, even though Islam is a religion, not a race. All that happens is a lot of handwringing, some token promises, and the same taxi drivers are back doing exactly the same the next week. If they are fired from proper taxi firms they turn to illegal taxi work, often uninsured and without paying taxes. Uber probably attracts quite a few such drivers unable to get proper driver jobs, so Uber is bound to be hit by plenty of complaints such as from this woman.

      And the solution is quite simple - if you can't do a job as required by the laws of the land then you shouldn't be allowed to do that job, end of. And if Uber can't ensure their drivers follow the law then Über should also not be allowed to operate, end of.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    extension of the entire business model

    so when the entire Uber business model is to profit by skirting inconvenient and expensive regulations "traditional" taxi services bear, one should not be surprised that additional inconveniencing and/or expensive rules will be skirted as well.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like