[NAGDU] Uber and Self-Identification

[Al Elia]

Curtis and listmates – I trust you all noted that President Riccobono pointed out  that NFB itself suggested the SelfID feature to Uber. As you all know, the advocacy team and NAGDU have been pressing Uber to implement SelfID to make it easier for people who use it to report denials and to ensure that Uber has evidence that denials were knowing so they deactivate denying drivers. As President Riccobono said, we have been adamant that identification must only take place after the driver has been paired. We will continue to press Uber to implement SelfID in a manner that foils, not fosters discrimination, and that benefits all riders with service animals whether they use SelfID or not.

As for those who choose not to use SelfID: The system for gathering evidence of a knowing denial and reporting it to Uber will remain unchanged. Uber has told us that it educates drivers on its policy and the law requiring them to transport service animals. However, drivers frequently don’t care and bet, usually correctly, that if they simply claim a rider did not identify their dog as a service animal, the rider is unlikely to be able to demonstrate that they did so identify by, for example, sending a message to the driver stating clearly that they use a service animal. They also bet, again usually correctly, that there are few enough riders with service animals that they are unlikely to encounter a second such rider after a first denial that results in a strike because of the lack of evidence. I myself have encountered more than one ridershare driver who told me (and a rideshare company representative on the phone) that they didn’t care if they were deactivated as they would just drive for the other rideshare company. No amount of driver education can fix that.

SelfID offers an automated means of establishing a knowing denial that should result in driver deactivation. It offers an automated way of reporting such denials without having to call the service animal hotline or fill out that annoying in-app/online form. To be sure, we clearly have to remain vigilant to ensure Uber does not provide drivers with a means of denying that Uber cannot detect, such as one of the current pilot options to inform drivers on the offer card before pairing. However, we will continue to advocate for implementation of SelfID that benefits everyone by removing denying drivers from Uber’s platform.

I am currently participating in the selfID pilot. I have chosen the option to only identify me as a service animal user after pairing with a driver. The frist time I ordered an uber after joining the pilot, it was incredibly liberating to just order and not have to compose any messages to the driver to establish evidence in case I was denied. I remain hopeful that NFB’s advocacy will convince Uber to remove the option to identify riders with service animals on the offer card before pairing.

Yours always,

/Æ

Al Elia


On 2 Nov 2024, at 13:18, Curtis Chong wrote:

> Greetings everyone:
>
>
>
> I have pasted into this email a letter sent by President Mark Riccobono to
> Uber regarding its unlawful implementation of self-identification to Uber by
> people using service animals. When, in early October, I read that Ubert was
> going to make it possible for passengers who were blind or deafblind to
> indicate this in their rider profiles, I thought that this would make it
> even easier for Uber drivers to deny rides to guide dog users. It would seem
> that my skepticism was justified.
>
>
>
> Link to Original Source
> <https://nfb.org/blog/rideshare-advocacy-unlawful-implementation-self-identi
> fication>
>
>
>
>
>
> Friday, November 1, 2024
>
>
>
> In follow up to the National Federation of the Blind Rideshare Rally,
> President Mark Riccobono sent the following correspondence on October 31,
> 2024, to Uber regarding the implementation of self-identification.
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Byrne:
>
>
>
> In our discussions with Uber during the past two years about the ongoing
> discrimination our members face when Uber drivers continue to deny them
> transportation based on their use of a guide dog service animal, we made
> several suggestions for how Uber could reduce such denials, and reduce the
> burden placed on riders in reporting denials. Among those, we suggested Uber
> provide an option for riders to save their use of a service animal in their
> profile/preferences and have the Uber platform inform drivers about those
> riders’ use of a service animal, alongside a reminder that the law and Uber
> policy require all drivers to transport riders with their service animals.
> We suggested the Uber system automatically suspend drivers who cancel rides
> after being informed that the rider uses a service animal, and automatically
> submit a denial complaint with the information about the denied rider, the
> denying driver, and other details necessary for an investigation that would
> result in the permanent deactivation of the denying driver.
>
> We suggested the self-identification option in the belief that, even if some
> riders who use guide dogs choose not to use the option, they would benefit
> because the riders who do choose to use the option would help to more
> quickly identify and remove denying drivers, which would benefit everyone.
> That belief was and is premised on self-identification only identifying
> service-animal using riders to drivers after they are paired.
>
> When Uber representatives informed us in late 2023 that they were planning
> to implement self-identification, in a way that would identify riders with
> service animals on the offer card presented to drivers before pairing, we
> indicated in the strongest terms that we and our members would not accept or
> support such a system, as it would enable drivers to choose not to pair with
> riders who use service animals, and effectively shield those drivers from
> the consequences of their discrimination against such riders. We left that
> conversation believing that Uber understood the importance of only
> identifying riders with service animals to drivers after pairing.
>
> Unfortunately, we learned last week that Uber intends to offer a default
> choice in the self-identification option to inform drivers of a rider’s
> service animal on the offer card prior to pairing. Providing this option,
> whether it is the rider’s choice or not, is unlawful. We will not support or
> condone such an option, and will publicly denounce Uber’s use of it and
> tolerance of the discrimination it fosters.
>
> Simply put, offering an option to disclose use of a service animal prior to
> pairing is unlawful.
>
> The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits Uber from discriminating
> against riders “on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment”
> of Uber’s services (42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(a) and 12184(a)). Uber may not
> “directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize ... criteria
> or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the
> basis of disability; or that perpetuate the discrimination of others who are
> subject to common administrative control” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(D)). It
> may not apply “eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an
> individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities
> from fully and equally enjoying” Uber’s services (42 U.S.C. §
> 12182(b)(2)(A)(i) and 12184(b)(1)). Finally, it must “make reasonable
> modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications
> are necessary to afford” Uber’s services to riders with disabilities (42
> U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 12184(b)(2)(A)).
>
> By offering an option for riders to disclose their use of a service animal
> on the offer card prior to pairing with a driver, Uber uses a criteria or
> method of administration that has the effect of discrimination by providing
> drivers with an option to undetectably refuse to transport an identifying
> rider with a service animal. It also perpetuates the pervasive
> discrimination by drivers who deny riders with service animals, whether they
> use self-identification or not, because it does not in any way reduce the
> number of drivers on the Uber platform who refuse to transport riders with
> service animals. Rather, it allows them to do so with impunity. In contrast,
> identifying riders with service animals after pairing can result in the
> discipline and removal of drivers who discriminate, redounding to the
> benefit of all riders with service animals whether they self-identify or
> not.
>
> Offering an option for riders to disclose their use of a service animal on
> the offer card prior to pairing with a driver also presents an eligibility
> criteria for driver pairing that screens out or tends to screen out riders
> with disabilities who use service animals from pairing with
> otherwise-eligible drivers who undetectably and unlawfully choose not to
> accept those riders. Uber must therefore modify its practice or procedure
> for self-identification to disclose riders’ use of service animals only
> after pairing so that driver-discrimination against those riders is weeded
> out.
>
> We hope Uber will consider this and our prior statements about how
> self-identification must function and never identify a rider’s disability or
> use of a service animal until after they are paired with a driver.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark A. Riccobono, President
> National Federation of the Blind