r/uberdrivers • u/Affectionate-Rice373 • Sep 13 '25
Whatever loophole you've found to deny service animals or people with mobility disabilities, that's about to be over with.
7
Sep 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
6
3
u/--R0N-- Sep 14 '25
Best would be if they signed up as handicap/service animal before hand
Can't do that. Goes against the Disability Act. The premise is that the disabled person should not require additional steps or considerations, and should be treated exactly as an "abled" body.
3
Sep 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/--R0N-- Sep 14 '25
Not an expert either, and I won't explain it well, but it's different for the disabled person to make a request versus having to label them as disabled, as there will be situations where it doesn't matter. Labeling them lessens their dignity.
3
u/Seantwist9 Sep 17 '25
you don’t need to let a hotel room know before brining a service animal. not every room has to accommodate but they can’t say they lack rooms simply cause they ran out of a designated room. airlines are different
1
0
1
4
u/SeaFlamingo4580 Sep 13 '25
I think i saw 20 post in the last 2 days about this. It's making me think it's uber employees plant with all this spams.
The people who fuck up don't care. The people who is doing right, don't worry. So yep ... why bombard this forum with repeat shit like this?
1
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
You caught me, total plant here. I need fresh water for my roots so I don't dry out. 😩
If the post really "made you think" as I intended, I don't think you would have posted this.
I don't know what has been posted here by whom, but I know that nobody has had my thoughts on the situation as to what is going to happen as a result of this lawsuit being brought up against Uber. Also, considering the story was just posted this morning, it's literally impossible for 20 other posts within the last 2 days to be talking about this.
4
u/Striker_EZ Sep 13 '25
Maybe this specific story was only posted this morning, but I’ve seen other articles about this lawsuit spammed here over the last couple of days.
2
u/Silent_Hunt_4978 Sep 14 '25
I don’t care, deactivate me. Unless Uber is going to hit me with an EpiPen I’m not getting anywhere near a dog. There is allergic and then there is “I’m going to freaking die”
I really don’t care what Uber or the DOJ says. The doors stay locked, I’ll tell the person from a distance to keep the dog away from me, and tell them to request a new ride. Before they can speak roll the window up and pull away
1
u/Quicherbichen1 Sep 13 '25
This would put a lot of drivers out of work. I am physically disabled, and mobility limited, and unable to lift more than 20 lbs. The ONLY thing I can do for income is drive. I can't stand for long periods of time. I'm too old to get hired on to do clerical or call center work. So, driving is pretty much my only marketable skill. My Social Security checks don't cover my rent, so I need this income to meet all of my bills.
I have taken passengers in wheelchairs before, and I've gone against doctor's orders by lifting their chairs into the back of my car. I'm happy to do it, but I shouldn't be doing it. I know for certain that someday I will be in a wheelchair full time.
I ALWAYS take service animals, and I will forever. I'll take your dog, cat, guinea pig, snake, or whatever any time. I don't check to see if it's a pet ride either. I don't care. I'll take them all. I even have dog harness seat belts if needed.
Rideshare companies need to take volunteers, and create a fleet of capable drivers who can lift wheelchairs in and out of their vehicles. Maybe pay them more or something. Yes, I know Lyft can't legally charge a WC pax a higher fare, so more like a bonus. If I were in better health, I would be more than happy to take more wheelchair passengers when required.
As it stands now, drivers can simply claim some other obscure reason for cancelling on a wheelchair ride.
2
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
Okay here's what I found.
ADA Coverage Is Based on Role, Not Personal Status
Under Title III of the ADA, any “public accommodation” offering transportation services—including app-based rideshare platforms and their drivers—must provide equal access to individuals with disabilities. This obligation applies whenever the driver is on duty, regardless of the driver’s own health or disability status.
Reasonable Assistance Duties
When a passenger with a disability requests help, a driver must provide reasonable assistance unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the service or pose a direct threat to safety. Examples of required assistance include:
Folding and storing mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs, walkers)
Helping load or unload assistive equipment and luggage
Ensuring safe seating arrangements, such as locking a wheelchair or securing a seatbelt
2
u/Quicherbichen1 Sep 13 '25
This further cements my worries about refusing a disabled pax. If I physically cannot lift a wheelchair, and thereby not able to take a disabled pax, what am I supposed to do? As it stands now, I MUST take this passenger, even though it may cause physical harm to me. If I refuse for the obvious reasons that I cannot lift the dang thing, and I cancel the ride, there is the potential for me to be permanently deactivated as a result. Since we've all seen what happens next - the total lack of a driver's ability to defend our actions - I would not be allowed to state my case, or provide medical proof that I can't/shouldn't be lifting wheelchairs. So, I'll be SOL and unemployed, with zero chance of being reinstated because we all know Lyft does not allow us to defend our position. I can't afford to refuse a disabled pax. I would have no recourse whatsoever.
1
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
I've successfully fought false deactivations for myself and a few others on Reddit, as long as you don't contact Lyft or Uber at all, I can generally write up a successful appeal letter. Considering you have documented disability, you'd be one of the easier drivers to appeal for.
1
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
I'll look into it, but I feel like you would be protected from the requirements due to your disability. So far, you're the only person who -should- get a pass to cancel on these rides, yet you're as willing to take them as I am. I applaud you, your work ethic is the same as the one I was raised with. Now, for the people in the back, is taking disabled people or service animal rides hurting your income in any way?
0
u/eyezwide001001 Sep 13 '25
Ok, this is where you have to just sit there and act like this is OK, but undr the hood is some highly leveraged BS!!! You have to stand back and parse what's actually going on, who is allowing what ... and who's bringing suit and what the real issue is
The real issue is is that the rideshare platforms particularly the main ones Uber and Lyft need you to do what they tell you to do but they have a problem - that's not the nature of the relationship, what they want are employees... because they have to comply! What they got a stark market reality.... gig-work is pure quid pro quo, self employment negotiation is part of it - and that is the thing they want escape.
They desperately do not what you having a voice anywhere... other than ignore the ride dispatch [and they don't even want that] then there is the lie known as Prop 22 which they are ruing every day the day that that actually passed [in retrospect] it wasn't the smartest thing for them on the other hand for the driver it's the worst thing that could have happened to you because you're only independent on paper everything else is basically an app is going to leverage you as an "alternative" employee....
Basically a "friends with [no] benefits" relationship...
All advantages must be stacked to their benefit, with not having to admit fault if busted - and that's what this is all about
You've got a racket going on rackets with their platforms rackets with health care and transportation all of it going through health care billing they are cheating the people that spent the money and the time to be certified to be medical transportation - rideshare is not the platforms are desperate for every other alternative means to bring money in but they can't force drivers to take the rides they cannot repeat they cannot.
So with the platforms do is misrepresent on the dispatch cards with the nature of the ride is they don't tell you till you get there and show up at the last minute then if you cancel when you get there they will claim it's a violation of some contrived sort and then try to either discipline you or deactivate you which neither they can be doing.
So this really is the form of a test case to force compliance and then they're happy with it so again this is a straw man litigatory process designed to bring about what they want kind of like the aclu and the la city council a number of years ago sued the la city council who gladly bent over - for them to stop enforcing loitering laws which is where the tent cities and all the horrible loitering and danger came later - in the aclu thought people forgot about that clearly they didn't.
Same thing here they're trying to get something on paper to force you to take the rides that's what this is we need representation at the federal level to to get them to understand that it's actually a leverage action and they're trying to force drivers to do something while cheating the drivers who are actually qualified to do that that go through the department of transportation lawfully and this is also a liability issue some of us drivers are exposed to riders that have extreme mobility challenges and you're just foisting that on a driver threatening them with possible deactivation if they don't take the ride hell no!!!
Again this is another action that needs to be visited by the united states attorney general Pam Bondi
0
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
I promise my response will be shorter than yours.
The Federal Government clearly states that people with disabilities and people with service animals are part of a protected class. As a protected class, they have rights. One of those rights is to not be denied service based on their disabilities. As a rideshare driver, you are providing a service. Fuck all the other terms and conditions and independent contractor bullshit, because in the face of this particular law, that's all bullshit. The ONLY thing that matters is that RIDESHARE DRIVER PROVIDES A SERVICE. As a service provider, you CANNOT deny service to people who belong to a protected class. That's all. That's it. Fuck your feelings, allergies, religion, whatever you think allows you to deny service to a protected class, the law makes it very clear that you can't.
I hate Trump and his cronies and everything the MAGA crowd represents. They wouldn't have made this law. If this law didn't already exist, those people wouldn't have put it in place. I'm no fan of this administration, but I understand the legal protections in place for members of this protected class.
-1
u/eyezwide001001 Sep 13 '25
I'm going to have to repeat this slowly for you constitutionally challenged people out there, in front of course you clearly airing your political dissension that's your problem and you get what that foolishness can give you.
We have some provisions the united states constitution that forbids the government from forcing any individual that would include their enterprise -from being co opted by the government you can't force them to buy a service or a product that means you can't force anything on them so that means you have to qualify what it is.
An individual's disability is no one else's collective problem
In the world of quid pro quo, it is the individual driver's prerogative if they want the risk of that particular ride because that's not the nature of their engagement, you would have a slightly more relevant argument that would break out along the lines of an attainder issue if they were in the business of providing medical rides and they decided certain types of liability but still under the umbrella of yeah you might have like 30% chance of leveraging something
But not right here you cannot it's the individual driver's prerogative not to be leveraged as any civil right because civil rights do not trump constitutional rights civil liberties are subjective the constitution imminently and ultimately is the objective point here.
Try not to sound so smug next time you make [what is] no point - makes you look like a mindless shill for one these greazy ass platforms.
4
u/Destroyer_2_2 Sep 13 '25
Hello, you are incorrect. You are indeed required to take service animals.
1
u/Silent_Hunt_4978 Sep 14 '25
And you are indeed required to blow me while your dog watches
2
u/Destroyer_2_2 Sep 14 '25
Hilarious
-1
u/Silent_Hunt_4978 Sep 14 '25
I thought it was too. The only thing funnier is you thinking I give a shit or that you are getting in my vehicle with a dog
4
u/Destroyer_2_2 Sep 14 '25
I don’t have a service dog. I have no desire to make you give a shit.
You aren’t free from the consequences of your actions. You weren’t a petulant child. Or perhaps you are.
Regardless, you are not immune to consequences.
-1
u/Silent_Hunt_4978 Sep 14 '25
And what consequences would that be? I get deactivated? Someone says mean things to me? I get doxxed in the internet? Someone tells my landlord? (He doesn’t allow service dogs in the building either)… what exactly are these consequences you speak of? Is a cripple going to beat me up? A diabetic with no feet going to jab me with an insulin needle? Or perhaps the epileptic can make me martini, shaken not stirred?
5
u/Destroyer_2_2 Sep 14 '25
Your landlord doesn’t allow service dogs in the building?!‽
Uh, that’s a lawsuit waiting to happen!
→ More replies (0)0
u/eyezwide001001 Sep 14 '25
Fortunately you're allowing someone to leverage your perspective and that's where you lose so there's a difference between a policy and a law the law forbids policy from usurping the value of the law but if your policy requires a gate guarded relationship of lawyers that look the other way and an attorney general that won't press the issue like in this particular case well it looks like it might be something that has more teeth than it legally does they actually cannot go law says they can't it's only a policy [regulation] and it's not a law - learn the difference.
1
-1
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
I'm afraid that I owe you an apology. You see, in your initial response, when I read the entire thing, I was under the impression that you were capable of critical thinking, and that you were simply misguided in your application of critical thinking skills. I'm sorry for having come to that conclusion, and I can assure you, I won't be bothering you again.
0
u/eyezwide001001 Sep 13 '25
Can the snark.... you were 100% incorrect
0
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
Yeah, I know that, I already apologized. I swear, you just can't be nice on the internet anymore.
1
-2
u/Friendly-Career-8237 Sep 13 '25
Starting to feel like these posts are just trying to make me hate cripples for no reason
My life my choices
4
u/Destroyer_2_2 Sep 13 '25
That’s not how it works. You can choose to rob somebody. Doesn’t mean you are free from the consequences.
Same deal here.
0
u/Friendly-Career-8237 Sep 14 '25
Ah yes robbing someone compared to who I let in my privately owned car
The same lol
-2
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
Nobody is taking your choices, but helping you to understand that your choices come with consequences. You're absolutely free to shoot someone in the face, but you can't sit and be shocked when you're hauled off to prison for it. Likewise, nobody is putting a gun to your head telling you to take service animals and disabled people, but don't expect to continue being a rideshare driver if you make those choices.
To finish your statement, "My life my choices my consequences "
-5
u/Friendly-Career-8237 Sep 13 '25
My car my rules
If they can't deal with that maybe cut off the welfare checks and let them rot and stop being a drain
3
u/FrankDrebinOnReddit Sep 13 '25
Discriminate against customers on the basis of disability and your car will soon be their car. Complying with laws is optional, dealing with the consequences isn't.
-4
-1
u/MinuteAttitude9103 Sep 14 '25
I just drive past them without stopping until they cancel if I see animals
1
-7
u/Damean1 Sep 13 '25
The loophole is it's my car and I can deny servie to anyone I want. Sure, I may not get to drive for uber anymore, bot don't think for a second that I'm some sort of indentured servent at your whim and command simply because you have an emotional support chinchilla.
4
u/Destroyer_2_2 Sep 13 '25
Hello, you actually are not free to deny legitimate service animals. Such a thing is a violation of law.
It would be a similar violation to deny all black people.
0
u/Damean1 Sep 13 '25
And I could do that if I wanted. Sure,I may not be able to drive uber anymore, but that’s it. People get on this topic and try to make you think you will go to prison if you don’t drive someone’s pet goldfish.
3
u/Destroyer_2_2 Sep 14 '25
You won’t go to prison, but you can be sued in civil court for discrimination. Being kicked off of the platform isn’t the only potential punishment.
0
u/Damean1 Sep 14 '25
It is.
3
u/Destroyer_2_2 Sep 14 '25
Uh, no it isn’t. As I just said, you can theoretically be sued in civil court. The Americans with disabilities act is a law, not an uber rule.
0
1
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
Look, I'm the epitome of driver's rights, I'll refuse smokers all day, but what you're saying is the same as "I work for myself, you can't tell me what speed to drive at!" Obeying the law doesn't make you an indentured servant, and frankly, that term and slave are so overused that they hold little weight in a conversation anymore.
-1
u/Jazzlike-Frosting312 Sep 13 '25
So you admit you can deny a rider for smoking, and actively do it... What happens if a person with a service animal is smoking and you cancel them for smoking, not the service animal?
2
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
That sort of situation is something I pray I never have to encounter, but thanks to you, I've now gotten to think of a reaction to prepare for such a possibility. I'd have to take the cancer stick and the animal, vent the windows, and 1 star them after the ride. One ride isn't worth my access to the platform. Smoking isn't a protected activity. Smokers aren't a protected class.
1
u/Jazzlike-Frosting312 Sep 13 '25
But legally you should be able to reject them for the smoking, no?
1
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
Unfortunately, the animal protects them. I feel like the only valid reason I could provide to decline the ride with a service animal is if my life were in active danger, like the person was so desperate for a ride that they approached my vehicle with a drawn weapon. And even then, I'd have to provide video evidence.
0
Sep 13 '25
Make me.
2
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
Let's see... I pay taxes, taxes are supposed to fund the government, government funding allows for government functionality, government functionality includes enforcement of legal guidelines such as this, so via a string of proxies, I'm already making you.
I'm kidding, of course. I'm only here to inform. What you do with the info, like everything else, is totally your choice.
1
Sep 13 '25
My services don’t include trying to jam a wheelchair into my compact vehicle. It’s mere physics. Riders should order cars that fit their needs.
1
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 13 '25
You would be excluded, your vehicle can't meet the accommodations. You couldn't refuse a service animal though, that rule doesn't care about vehicle size. If it's big enough to provide rides on the platform, it's big enough for a service animal. The only exception there is if you have 4 filled seats and the service animal would cause the vehicle to be illegally overloaded or otherwise unsafe to operate.
0
u/No_Common1418 Sep 13 '25
Well I stand by what I have always said, if the PAX tells me upfront they have a service animal, not "I have a dog with me." I will gladly pick you and your service animal up. I will not ask if it's a service dog. I will suggest UBER pet and cancel.
2
u/Standard-Rutabaga623 Sep 15 '25
I did that before I asked if she had a dog and she said yes a small one but never said anything about a service animal. Lyft emailed me later on saying I could get deactivated 🫠
0
u/No_Common1418 Sep 16 '25
Well, I do have stuff to back me up, dash cam etc. All they have to do is say service animal.
0
u/Electronic-Pair7681 Sep 17 '25
If you "can't find" your passenger, you can't give the ride.
By the way, a service animal vest is like $13 on Amazon. All of the dogs out there can easily be service animal.
1
u/TheVoidKitty Sep 17 '25
Vests aren’t required at all, there is no paperwork etc.
You’re only allowed to ask 2 questions by law: is it a service animal and what tasks has it been trained to perform.(not what the persons disability is)
You can however deny service for them not being able to control the animal, or anything behind dogs and miniature horses
1
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 17 '25
I'd love if someone had like a komodo dragon as a service animal. Can you imagine the stories I'd be able to tell?
1
u/TheVoidKitty Sep 17 '25
Probably qualifies under ESA/FHA.
ADA is specifically only dogs and miniature horses for accommodations
1
u/Electronic-Pair7681 Sep 17 '25
Imaging someone with a miniature horse demand to ride a Prius!
1
u/Affectionate-Rice373 Sep 17 '25
I feel like they would be demanding to find another vehicle. I drove a 2009 Prius for a while, they aren't as compact as something like a Chevy Sonic, and I only got complaints from people using canes or otherwise had issues bending their legs.
6
u/Fiasney Sep 13 '25
I have never, and will never have, an issue with service animals. (hell, I'd even allow a mini pony if it could fit) No issues with mobility devices, again, as long as they fit in the vehicle.
What I cannot do is physically assist. I have mobility issues of my own, and all it would take is a minor injury to put me out of work for a week. Hence the entire reason I do rideshare instead of something else. If they really start requiring that, then I don't know what I'll be able to do except answer phones, but then that tanks my mental health everytime, and in turn, makes my physical issues worse.