[Massachusetts-NFB] Fwd: [NAGDU] My Thoughts on the NAGDU Seminar

[Justin Heard]

Good afternoon everyone.

During yesterday's general session, Uber did not have much to offer us. 
However, I learned today that NAGDU has been doing some important work 
with airlines and Uber. Here is an insightful email sent by a member of 
the NAGDU executive board. If you are interested in more information, 
please subscribe to the nagdu email list.

I am sharing this because I never would have known about NAGDU's efforts 
if not for the email. I believe others also may not have any 
information, and may feel frustrated about our lack of progress with 
Uber and the airlines. We are making strides, but quietly. Perhaps too 
quietly.

I hope you find this helpful.

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject: 	Re: [NAGDU] My Thoughts on the NAGDU Seminar
Date: 	Sun, 02 Jul 2023 22:17:26 -0500
From: 	Al Elia via NAGDU <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Reply-To: 	NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog 
Users <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
To: 	NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
CC: 	Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>, NAGDU <board at nagdu.org>



Mike and all, On behalf of myself and the NAGDU executive board:

Regarding the ACAA: We are hopeful that the pilot program that was 
included in the draft FAA reauthorization will pass. That is the best 
chance for something to happen soon, meaning in less than two to three 
years. We sought statutory provisions to prohibit forms entirely, but 
that was rejected on a partisan basis. We sought a statutory restriction 
that the forms could not be required before boarding and that airlines 
needed to provide both the forms and assistance completing them, but 
that was similarly rejected on a partisan basis. We also sought a 
private right of action to sue in the FAA reauthorization, but that was 
similarly rejected on a partisan basis. I should add that when I say "a 
partisan basis," I mean that one party told us that they would not agree 
to anything that the airline lobby opposed. The pilot program was the 
best we could do, so we did it.

We are also drafting a petition for a new rulemaking regarding service 
animals on airlines that we plan to submit to the DOT before the end of 
the summer. We could petition for things to go back to pre-2021 rules, 
but we have been told that such a petition will be rejected. We plan to 
propose that if an airline requires attestation forms, they must provide 
assistance completing them. That means that they must assist completing 
them at the airport at the gate and at no earlier time, or that if they 
require them in advance of travel, they must assist in completing the 
forms over the phone. That new rulemaking will take two to three years. 
The airlines will oppose it. We should protest when they do.

There are two possible ways to address the forms discrimination issue in 
a shorter period of time. One is to pursue an APA action to set aside 
the current regulations as unlawful. I have been told by the NFB's 
general counsel that the likelihood of success with an APA action is 
low, and the risk of losing is that our rights could be rolled back 
further if a court holds that requiring forms from guide dog users is 
lawful. That said, we are still considering filing such an action, with 
the requirement that if, after reviewing the administrative record NFB 
believes we are likely to lose, we will seek dismissal of the action in 
order to avoid making bad law. If it looks like we might win, we should 
mobilize guide dog users to show up at the court house.

The second option is something that we will be attempting by the fall, 
as it has no risk but may not succeed. I have discussed it with the 
board and with NFB, and we are agreed that we should try it. However, we 
are not discussing it openly because we do not want the airlines or 
others to have advance warning of our plans, as they would then have an 
opportunity to prepare to thwart our efforts. Again we should plan a 
march in support once we have pulled the trigger on this.

We have discussed a more immediate protest at the DOT. We and NFB are 
not opposed to such a protest. However, we will need enough folks with 
guide dogs to attend such a protest to make it worth everyone's time and 
effort, and to ensure that it may be effective.. Unlike other protests 
where the NFB can easily mobilize lots of blind protesters, we feel it 
would be important for the bulk of the protesters to be guide dog users. 
That is harder to mobilize just based on membership numbers. If there is 
support for such a protest at the business meeting, we will work with 
NFB's advocacy team to move forward on that. We still may hold off until 
we have a petition filed for a new rulemaking, as a protest in support 
of something we just filed is more likely to be helpful in making change 
than a protest just because we don't like what is happening now.

We have also been coordinating our advocacy efforts with GDUI, the ACB's 
guide dog division, as our interests are aligned on this issue. We may 
be able to work with them on a joint protest in order to boost numbers.

One concern that we must think about is the public reaction to such a 
protest. It is one thing to protest to demand access to public 
buildings, jobs, accommodations, etc. However, the public may feel that 
filling out forms to bring your dog somewhere is no big deal, especially 
if it keeps others from bringing their fake service animals places and 
bothering all of the non-disabled people. The airlines and media did a 
great job publicizing the few instances of fake service animals and ESAs 
causing mayhem. We will have a very uphill battle if we want to try to 
re-cork that bottle. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but we should 
consider the possible public backlash.

We all know that guide dogs are not the problem, and that people aren't 
faking blindness and falsely claiming their pet is a guide dog. They are 
falsely claiming an invisible disability and a need for a fake service 
animal for that disability. However, agencies are loathe to apply 
different rules to guide dogs than to service animals for other 
disabilities. In addition, advocacy organizations for other disabilities 
have opposed and will oppose any differentiation between guide dogs and 
other types of service animals.

As an aside, I would like to point out that we are now facing similar 
treatment as non-blind service animal users have always faced when 
flying. In other areas of life we frequently still maintain a privileged 
position relative to other service animal users. We may wish to consider 
that before insisting on a return to the status quo ante. We are no 
longer the only (or at least near only) users of service animals, as we 
used to be. That is largely why we are dealing with these new 
impositions. We may want to consider accepting this new world, and only 
requiring accommodations rather than our previously privileged status.

That said, I have always represented the interests of guide dog users 
specifically, and will continue to do so. Where there is a conflict 
between our interests and the interests of non-blind service animal 
users, I will pursue our interests. Where I can find common ground on an 
intersectional basis, I will pursue that with a "rising tides lift all 
boats" mindset.

Regarding JetBlue: I think that, given the multiple denials of different 
members by JetBlue, we should consider a protest at their headquarters 
in Long Island City, NY. Again we need numbers. I would welcome your and 
any others' assistance with organizing.

Regarding the pilot: It will be open to everyone, regardless of how 
frequently they travel. It will be open to everyone, regardless of their 
facility with technology. Airlines will have to take a service animal 
number by phone just as they take a pre-check number by phone. As for 
your comment that " it still leaves the door open for discrimination at 
the airport," I don't understand. airlines were always able to 
discriminate without facing consequences, even pre-2021. I used to avoid 
flying Southwest because I faced discrimination nearly every time I flew 
them pre-2021 when staff required me to sit in the bulkhead even if I 
didn't want to. I was threatened with being removed from the aircraft if 
I didn't move. MY complaints to DOT went nowhere. Again, the pilot is an 
improvement, not a cure-all.

As for your belief that we may be able to find enough republican support 
for a bill that provides for a cause of action to sue airlines, I 
respectfully disagree. As I mentioned above, one party has essentially 
outsourced decision-making on their support to the airlines. If you know 
of members who would buck their party on this, please connect John PAre, 
Justin Young, and me with their offices and we will happily make that a 
priority. However, we are all volunteers here, and our time is valuable. 
We do not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Right now we are 
facing bad to very bad. Good would be better. We can achieve good. Once 
we achieve good, we may pursue perfect. However, if perfect is 
unattainable, as seems certain given partisan efforts to strip causes of 
action from the ADA, partisan rhetoric about the negative effects of ADA 
lawsuits on businesses, partisan outsourcing to the airlines, and the 
information we have gleaned from hill staffers regarding partisan 
attitudes, we have chosen to seek the good. We do not want to spend our 
time fruitlessly tilting at a perfect windmill when we can successfully 
achieve good and make our lives better than they are now. That is true 
even if making our lives better still falls short of being as good as 
the past.

As for Uber: We are never going to get all drivers to stop denying us, 
just as we never got all taxis to stop denying us. All we can do is make 
it so that when a driver denies us, they are not permitted to continue 
driving for paying passengers. Over time, the result will be that 
long-time drivers will be the drivers who take their obligations 
seriously and don't deny us, and newer drivers who get the message that 
denying service-animal users is not tolerated and will be swiftly 
punished. Uber has raised the priority of service-animal denial 
complaints to the highest level, which is the same level as 
investigations of sexual and physical assault complaints. We have been 
told that Uber is now requiring evidence that a driver did not deny 
based on a service animal when a complaint is made. As for past denials, 
We were also told that even when we received emails saying that a driver 
was educated, those drivers were also removed from Uber's platform. We 
continue to push Uber to provide us with outcome determinations after 
investigations of service animal denials, as we have gotten from Lyft.

The Self-ID pilot will automatically suspend drivers when they deny 
based on a service animal. That is not nothing. Right now drivers are 
only suspended pending an investigation when a complaint is lodged by a 
rider. That often doesn't happen because lodging a complaint is 
difficult and time-consuming. We have tried to address that difficulty 
as well, and as a result of our efforts Uber implemented a change to 
require their trust and safety hotline to accept complaints about 
service animal denials. However, that is still frustrating and 
time-consuming, especially when multiple drivers deny. The automated 
system will immediately suspend in the moment of the denial without the 
rider having to take any action. That should help eliminate denying 
drivers from the platform over time in a much more efficient manner than 
the current system provides. We can't stop drivers from betting that 
they aren't likely to be faced with transporting a service animal in 
their car, and refusing to do so when they lose that bet. What we can do 
is make it so that the consequences of refusing are immediate and 
serious. The Self -ID system I proposed and Uber agreed to pilot does that.

We are also encouraging riders to file DOJ complaints because our 
attorneys have said that DOJ is actively investigating such complaints. 
a DOJ investigation is far more concerning to Uber than a potential 
lawsuit by NFB or its members.

Regarding PR: We are not afraid of Uber and others' PR. However, we are 
not mindless of it either. For reasons to be mindful, see above 
regarding airlines and the media surrounding fake service animal and ESA 
mayhem. I think a protest of Uber may be effective. I am also mindful of 
similar public perception, turnout, and other concerns as above with 
respect to airline/DOT protests.

In short, we are working on making the lives of guide dog users better, 
particularly with respect to airlines and rideshare companies. Those 
have been the absolute priority of the board, and of my personal NAGDU 
advocacy since joining the board two years ago. It is my opinion that we 
will get farther faster with the incremental approach I have been 
pursuing than with the swing-for-the-fences approach you seem to prefer. 
After all, the home-run hitters are also strike-out kings.

I appreciate your thoughts and hope to continue our discussion at the 
business meting.

Yours,

Al (undersigned by Raul, Paul, Jessica, and Stacie)



On 2 Jul 2023 at 9:57:21 AM, Michael Forzano wrote:

>> It was nice to see quite a bit of discussion about what are arguably the biggest issues of discrimination facing guide dog users today, rideshare and the airlines. Unfortunately, there was not a whole lot in the way of even working towards solutions that truly eliminate these problems. What I heard is that the best hope of changing the airline situation is a pilot program in the FAA reauthorization Act that would create essentially TSA pre-check for guide dogs. This would make things easier for frequent travelers, but what about folks who don't travel often? What about folks who aren't good with technology? And at the end of the day, it still leaves the door open for discrimination at the airport. On rideshare, we are working with Uber on a pilot program where riders can identify themselves as service animal users before a ride and have reports automatically filed if they are denied. Considering some of the drivers I've encountered, I would not be surprised if drivers continue to deny us even if they're threatened by a message in their app. And when they do, Uber has a terrible track record of handling reports and taking action, as we all know. Even during the settlement period when Uber was required to deactivate drivers in certain situations, they rarely did.
>>
>> It seems to me that the NAGDU board has taken the position that we now live in a world where these discriminations are our reality. As was pointed out by a NAGDU member, guide dog access was better 25 years ago and our rights are being rolled back. But there is no realistic way to go back to "the good old days".  We are so afraid of losing more, that we're not willing to demand back the rights that the blind fought so hard for. While that's a perfectly valid position for someone to take at an individual level, is that the position we want the NFB, the voice of the nation's blind, to take?
>>
>> Protesting was brought up multiple times during the seminar. The response from our leaders was that they did not think it would be effective. The fact is that we don't know if it will be unless we try. Protesting has helped advance civil rights causes in the past, including those of the blind. In my opinion, the NAGDU board should not be worrying about members traveling across the country for a protest that turns out to be ineffective. Advocacy takes work, and I'd like to think that people signing up for a protest are well aware that it probably won't yield immediate results. As was pointed out, we would not have the ADA if disabled advocates hadn't crawled up the steps of the capitol. The NFB has protested on a number of issues as well.
>>
>> Particularly when it comes to Uber, I think a protest is long overdue. We've sued them, settled with them, and tried to work with them for almost 10 years. It is long past time to change our strategy, and yet we're too afraid because of their PR resources.
>>
>> Another argument that I heard was that we would be unable to advance legislation due to Republican control of Congress. My question is, do other civil rights orgs put their advocacy on hold when the party that most supports their cause isn't in power? The split in Congress is quite narrow and I doart think it's that far fetched that we could convince some Republicans on the importance of some of our legislation.
>>
>> I am curious if other members have similar sentiments, and thoughts on what actions we can take. I have thought about bringing a resolution to the convention to make these issues a top priority for the NFB as a whole but I assume it's too late this year. Open to ideas, and happy to help in any way I can. That said, doing this work as an individual doesn't make a lot of sense, we need to be aligned as an organization in order to make real progress.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> _______________________________________________
>> NAGDU mailing list
>> NAGDU at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NAGDU:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/psandoval%40nagdu.org

_______________________________________________
NAGDU mailing list
NAGDU at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NAGDU:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/braillemasterjustin%40gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org/attachments/20230707/f9d9db8c/attachment.html>