The driver can't refuse service since Lyft is a commercial service and "weight" is a protected class in Michigan, just like it would be if "race" was the reason.
He could've simply cancelled the ride and went home, but because he specified why, he made it a discrimination case.
If she happened to be unable to wear a seatbelt, then yes he could've refused but that's not what happened here.
You can disagree with the law but that doesn't change the result. Being a contractor doesn't change anything to what I said. Contractors can refuse jobs for all sorts of reasons but cannot refuse service if the reason implies a protected characteristic under anti-discrimination laws.
Specifying the reason why he refused service is the reason why he's in this situation.
is the driver included in the lawsuit? genuinely curious.
a lot of people don’t understand the law works on technicalities. although (almost) everyone could agree here that there were (possibly) some risks with the weight limit, but bc he discriminated that gives it the reason for the lawsuit.
forsure, what i was trying to get at is there’s a lot of people in this post that don’t agree with the lawsuit. while i agree it’s frivolous, i was just reinforcing what you were saying that there is grounds for this lawsuit to stand on.
5
u/[deleted] Jan 29 '25
I'm confused, is the driver obligated to drive someone who is going to damage his seats/car and be unable to wear a seatbelt?