Jens Wohltorf, CEO of Blacklane, explains how Uber’s drive sharing service differs.
Uber was ordered to pay $ 1.1 million to a blind passenger after an independent arbitrator ruled that the company’s executives had discriminated against her after refusing on 14 separate occasions.
Lisa Irving, a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, filed the lawsuit against Uber in 2018 after “she was completely denied a ride or harassed by Uber drivers who did not want to transport her with her guide dog”, on which she relied .
Irving claims drivers left her stranded at night and brought her to work late, which may have contributed to her being fired.
AMTRAK DECIDES 30 NEW ROUTES FOR COMMANDED INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Irving’s lawyers said their client suffered verbal abuse and intimidation, which did not stop after she brought her complaints to Uber.
“Of all the Americans who need to be liberated by the Revolutionary Revolution, the blind and visually impaired are among those who benefit the most,” Catherine Cabalo, one of Irving’s lawyers, told the BBC in a statement. ‘of the most important services for the shares were at best awkward and at worst openly discriminatory. ‘
“The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog must be able to go where a blind person can go,” she added.
LAST SHIPS STANDED IN SUEZ CANAL COMPLETE TRANSIT IN A WEEK AFTER Cargo Ship was Discharged
Uber rejected Irving’s allegations, insisting divers were expected to serve riders with service animals and comply with accessibility, but the arbitrator found that was not the case.
The investigation suggested that drivers be trained to deny rides that would bypass Americans with disabilities.
The arbitrator ruled that Uber was liable for violations by the ADA because of its “contractual supervision over its drivers and because it could not prevent discrimination by properly training its drivers.”
The ADA prohibits undertakings from denying transportation of a person with a guide dog.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO by clicking here
Uber does not completely agree with the ruling and says its team is investigating every complaint and taking appropriate action.