Uber is explicitly obligated to fire any driver who refuses service to a rider with a service animal, according to the terms of their lawsuit settlement with the National Federation for the Blind If you have an issue with this policy, take it up with NFB https://twitter.com/docnifkin_md/status/1304556884662398976 …
-
-
The real issue here is that Uber is generally terrified of having to defend their drivers' status as "independent contractors" in court - it's what their whole business model depends on and yet most outside observers find the idea ridiculous
-
The settlement was a way for Uber to try to make this go away They're allowing NFB to impose conditions on them that make them act like the drivers' boss for *this issue and this issue only* so they could avoid a ruling on the underlying issue of whether drivers are employees
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Deactivating drivers abruptly is not something that Uber seems particularly reluctant to do. They agreed to do something they often do anyway, except now they can claim (accurately) that their hands are tied.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.