Blacklane CEO Jens Wohltorf explains how the ride-sharing service differs from Uber.
Uber was ordered to pay a blind passenger $ 1.1 million after an independent referee ruled that the company’s drivers discriminated against it after refusing to travel on 14 different occasions.
Lisa Irving, a San Francisco Bay Area resident, filed a lawsuit against Uber in 2018 after “she was denied or harassed by Uber drivers who didn’t want to transport her with her guide dog”, in which she trusts.
Irving claimed that drivers left her imprisoned at night and delayed her to work, which may have contributed to her dismissal.
AMTRAK PROPOSES 30 NEW ROUTES FOR THE BIDEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Irving’s lawyers said her client suffered verbal abuse and intimidation, which did not stop after she filed her complaints with Uber.
“Of all the Americans who should be freed by the ride-sharing revolution, the blind and visually impaired are among those who will benefit the most,” Catherine Cabalo, one of Irving’s lawyers, told the BBC in a statement. of the main shared transport services has been irregular, at best, and openly discriminatory, at worst. “
“The bottom line is that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere a blind person can go,” she added.
THE LAST SHIPS DELIVERED IN THE SUEZ CHANNEL COMPLETE THE TRANSIT NEARLY A WEEK AFTER THE DISPLACED LOAD SHIP
Uber rejected Irving’s claims, insisting that its divers “must serve passengers with service animals and comply with accessibility”, but the referee concluded that this was not the case.
The investigation suggested that drivers were trained to deny trips that circumvent the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The referee decided that Uber was responsible for ADA violations because of its “contractual oversight over its drivers and its failure to prevent discrimination through proper training of its drivers”.
The ADA prohibits companies from denying the transport of a person with a service dog.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE MOVE BY CLICKING HERE
Uber strongly disagreed with the decision, saying its team analyzed each complaint and took appropriate action.