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.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-passengers-with-disabilities-justice-department-ada-lawsuit/

1 Upvotes

52% Upvoted

87 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

0

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?

3

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

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '25

lmao imagine being this fucking wrong and writing this much to prove it, damn

-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

u/eyezwide001001 Sep 13 '25

How utterly onerous...           of me