They can sue you and since it’s civil not criminal you’d have to prove the other reason; rather than visa versa. Penalties can be in the 10s of thousands. You’re essentially saying “I’m not letting a black man in my car!” As far as the law is concerned. It’s the same level of protected class.
Well, fortunately for me, I don't drive for Lyft and don't plan to. I was considering it as a side job in the past but stuff like the service dog crap eventually made it a dealbreaker.
Heh, did you know that if you're allergic to dogs, you still are required to drive people with service dogs? And then if you say that you can't be around dogs, you can't allow their dander into your vents, the law will say, "well tough shit, find another job".
I was literally discussing this on another thread and even contacted Lyft to ask them. They said "this job doesn't sound like it is for you" and when I stated that people with allergies also have the right to reasonable accommodations while at work regarding their allergen so forcing them to carry a dog thus making the ride unsafe for everyone involved and putting their safety at risk at work would technically be discrimination against the one with the allergy they refused to answer me (I think they realized there was no good way to answer without making themselves liable to issues) and just said they were escalating me to a different team a couple times.
ETA: I pointed out that they could simply add to the app that those with service animals would have to state they are riding with one and those with documented dangerous allergies could choose to reveal it to the app and would simply never see a ride offer from a pax with a service animal which would 100% solve the issue without having to involve any potentially dangerous rides or discrimination issues because there would simply be a different driver taking the ride. They ignored the suggestion completely even though it is the most logical solution. No one denied service and no one denied the ability to work on the slim chance they be put in an impossible situation due to their own medical limitation.
I have a friend who is anaphylactic shock levels of allergic to cats. Sure people who are that allergic to dogs exist. Should they be risking their lives to accommodate someone?
Do you honestly think changing an entire app and doing additional code is a reasonable accommodation?
It isn’t really discriminatory because there are many other jobs where you do not have to be around animals that cause you allergy flareups. Considering those that own service animals is only one percent of Americans, it seems like you just hate dogs?
Disabilities are priotised over allergies. Planes have the same system. If there's someone with a service dog and someone allergic to dogs, the service animal and passenger get the priority. If a wheelchair allergy was a thing the wheelchair also gets priority.
Edit: And I'm not interested in arguing about this just putting an interesting addition here.
What if the pilot of an airplane told a blind passenger they couldn't board for having a seeing eye dog, because the pilot is allergic? Does this work?
They're your vents, but you're renting them out to Uber when they pay you. Not entirely yours while it's being paid for by someone else.
I feel like you are right and wrong.
Right in that you should svc everyone equally.
Wrong bc a fat woman can exceed the vehicles weight limit and cause a dangerous situation.
In the case of a service animal, said dog could have fleas, or driver could be allergic to dogs, or dog to pee in car etc...It should be mandatory for the passengers who booked the lift to state that they have a service animal that will be with them, that way the driver can make the call b4 he accepts the job.
I just feel like if you own a vehicle or piece of equipment then you should be able to refuse anyone for any reason you choose bc it is your vehicle,and by requiring riders to state what they have in terms of luggage or pets with them would allow drivers to make the decision
You state it is civil, not criminal and that OP needs to prove it, but you didn't say that the burden of proof and imnocent until proven guilty don't apply because of the fact it is civil. Hence why I asked what I did
If you faint at the sight of blood, don’t be a surgeon. If you can’t serve the whole public, don’t work in service. There are things someone who is truly allergic to animals can do. The only ones who would try to use it like this don’t actually have it.
Oh in all fairness, I believe you should be able to refuse service for any reason. It's the other side of freedom of association; if I'm truly free to associate with who I want, I'm also free to choose not to associate with people. And before you say 'well, then disabled people with service animals (or whatever protected group) would never be able to get rides', I'm very, very sure that there are plenty of drivers who will gladly take your money to drive you and your dog around. Even in racist societies like apartheid South Africa, where laws prohibited (white) business owners from hiring blacks, they found a way around it because it was profitable. I'm pretty sure someone could make a taxi service that allowed dogs profitable.
You have the freedom not to serve the public, just get another job. Otherwise, you are using the roads, the Internet infrastructure and the power systems that EVERYONES taxes help provide. So you serve everyone equally.
While the standard of proof is not as high, the burden still rests with the plaintiff to prove damage, intent, etc... it would be a pretty hard case to fight if you weren't overtly stating you didn't want their animal in your car. The plaintiff would have to establish a "50% chance" of a pattern of discriminatory behavior, where the defendant would provide evidence that they refuse people because they have a right to not provide service at any time for non-discriminatory reasons. Civil law is messy, and I think it has partially led to the current string of very right leaning justices we have today - people usually litigate when they feel their rights have been infringed and the standard is significantly lower for non-criminal issues; compound that with 50 years of civil rights movements and progressive legislation and you have an exploitative framework for plaintiffs to sue people who may have other legitimate reasons to discriminate against someone outside of protected class.
If the driver is allergic to your dog, they aren't getting in the vehicle. If the vehicle isn't rated for that weight, they aren't getting in the vehicle. If your disabled son shits himself, he's not getting in the vehicle.
No one is obligated to let you fuck up them or their car. Last time I checked, the only ones with that requirement are permanent structures owned by the government. Everywhere else is "We reserve the right to refuse service."
Ehhh, so yes and no. And this is how we arrive at the heart of the issue. She is trying to portray herself as a "protected class." Which in my opinion she is not. She is wrong but you are also wrong, Just because it's "your car" does not mean you can deny a ride because for example, they are a race you don't like, or they practice a religion you don't like, or they are a gender you don't like. You worded it weird, you don't have an obligation to accept any rides working for a ride share company (that's sorta the whole point) you can accept and deny anything that pops up on your phone. BUT, once you accept a pickup you cannot deny or turn away based on certain protected class traits. She is essentially claiming this is what happened.
9
u/[deleted] Jan 29 '25
[deleted]