Well, he should be required to do so, because that is a general precondition of disabled people participating freely in society
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @badspaceguy
I should make this super clear too The ADA is only enforceable on people who are operating a business that serves the general public But if this were a purely private, personal interaction - "Sorry, I don't want dogs in my carpool" - he's still morally an asshole
1 reply 6 retweets 58 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @badspaceguy @arthur_affect
When it's a disabled person's service animal it absolutely is, you ableist doorknob.
0 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @badspaceguy @atalantapendrag
There is no such thing as an "ADA-accessible car" The ADA describes many different kinds of accommodations, but when it comes to service animals EVERY CAR is an "ADA-accessible car"
1 reply 3 retweets 32 likes -
The ADA says in black and white you do not get to ask for documentation, YOU LET THE DOG INTO THE CAR YOU HAVE TO
1 reply 3 retweets 25 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @badspaceguy @arthur_affect
That is their responsibility, yes. But the proper response to discovering that you have failed to properly vet an "employee" (as has occurred here, where Uber failed to detect that the driver was ableist to the point of refusing to follow federal law) is to fire them, no?
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
She didn't, she repeatedly said she didn't want him fired, and of the four employees she reported only that one got banned from the app
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.