[NJAGDU] FW: [NAGDU] Uber and Self-Identification

Tue Nov 5 13:28:25 UTC 2024

This message has our fantastic NAGDU lawyer's responses to Curtis's email.
Tracy

-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU <nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Al Elia via NAGDU
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 5:37 PM
To: Curtis Chong <chong.curtis at gmail.com>
Cc: Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>; NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [NAGDU] Uber and Self-Identification

Dear Curtis – Thank you for your thoughtful email. Please see my comments below after your own.

> The issue of advance self-identification of guide dog users (which, in the context of Uber, I hope will always remain optional) is one which gives me more than a little concern. As long as I have been a member in the National Federation of the Blind (since 1969, I am proud to say), I have always supported the concepts embodied in the White Cane laws which we now have in all fifty states. Deeply imbedded in every one of these White Cane laws is the right of guide dog users to free and equal access to places and services to which all members of the public are entitled. Not until the current decade have we in the National Federation of the Blind contemplated the notion that guide dog users might need to place themselves on a list in order to avail themselves of services that everyone else is able to obtain without question--such as transportation in a taxicab or an airplane.

As a guide dog user for nearly thirty years, I could not agree with you more. I find it incredibly frustrating that we must deal with people fraudulently misrepresenting their pets and ESAs as service animals. I also find it frustrating to deal with rideshare denials while also recognizing that rideshare provides greater access to point-to-point transportation than we had during the reign of taxi companies. That said, I also encountered denials by taxis in the pre and post rideshare times, and generally those were more difficult to impose consequences on drivers, at least in New York City.

Having now worked with John Pare and the advocacy team as the NAGDU board mnember tasked with representing guide dog users in discussions with rideshare companies, whether on panels or in direct discussions, I have unfortunately come to the conclusion that there is no better way to improve the service we receive than SelfID. I understand that stance requires some justificationn so here it goes:

The companies already educate drivers on their legal and policy responsibility to transport riders with service animals. Could they do better by, for example, offering that education in more languages? Certainly. However, given my and others’ experience with drivers who clearly comprehend English and nonetheless either think they don’t have to transport us or just don’t care what the policy is, I do not see education as the answer.

As an attorney, I also understand that rideshare companies are in a tough spot when a rider complains that a driver refused to transport them with their service animal, and the driver either claims they were not told it was a service animal or did not understand that the rider’s dog was a service animal. That kind of classic they said/they said situation makes it difficult for an adjudicator to determine what really happened or who to believe. The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission has an entire administrative body, including attorneys, who handle adjudication of those situations, and it literally takes months to process and adjudicate a single complaint. In the meantime, drivers are permitted to continue driving under the “innocent until proven guilty” practice of our judicial system.

In order to adduce evidence in case I am denied and have to file a complaint with a rideshare company,  I have taken to composing a message to drivers that I am blind and will not see them, so  please let me know when they arrive, and that I am wearing whatever I’m wearing and have a black guide dog service animal. It’s a pain in the neck, but I do it every time to ensure that I can point to that message when I complain about a denial. I have been told by rideshare company representatives that such evidence is crucial in determining that a driver should be deactivated.

When denied, I also have to either call the hotline, wait for a representative, then explain to to them all of the details of the denial, or fill out their  clunky form with those details. I thought to myself, “Wouldn’t it be simpler if the system could establish that eviddence for me, and submit a complaint for me with those details when a denial occurs since the information is already available in the app?” Of course it would be simpler and easier for me and others in the same situation. I also thought it would be easier for rideshare companies to remove drivers, as they would be able to point out to drivers that the app told them about the use of a service animal, and warned them that they might be deactivated if they canceled after being reminded byy the app that they must transport service animals. Of course, that would require the rideshare companies to somehow know  that I or other riders use a service animal so they know to use that machinery on our behalf.

All of that said, I also understood that many people would balk at identifying themselves as a gguide dog user. I personally do not understand that objection, as I generally have to identify myself by answering the two legally permissible questions regarding whether I require a service dog due to disability and what task he is trained to perform. Sometimes that may be because, according to many, I “don’t look blind,” whatever that means, or because people are trained to ask those questions about every dog that walks through the door. In any case,  we stressed to the rideshare  companies at all times that SelfID must be optional and affirmatively chosen, and that   they must continue to investigate reports from riders who do not choose to use SelfID to let drivers know in advance that they use a service animal.

> As for the self-identification question and Uber, I think, first of all, that we should all understand that self-identification, in and of itself, is neither a good nor a bad thing. What makes self-identification it a good thing is when Uber drivers never know that a person requesting a ride is using a guide dog until the driver and the passenger have been connected through the Uber app. When this connection is made and the driver then finds out that the person requesting a ride is using a guide dog, any ride cancellation or denial initiated by the driver becomes suspect and should, at a minimum, generate an investigation. If it is determined that the use of a guide dog was the reason for the cancellation, then the driver should be permanently removed from the Uber platform.

Again, couldn’t agree more. SAid that to the rideshare companies. They agreed. Uber came back with a proposal to ID riders with service animals prior to pairing at the end of 2023, and I nearly bit the representatives’ heads off. John can confirm that, as he often plays good cop to my bad cop.

> If, on the other hand, self-identification enables the Uber driver to learn in advance that a passenger requesting transportation uses a guide dog or that the passenger is blind and if the driver then chooses not to accept the ride, the driver is shielded from the consequences of his/her discrimination against the passenger. This, in my view, is the worst form of implementation for the self-identification option.

Agreed. See prior comment. Told them nearly that exact thing as why we would never agree to use a SelfID that idenbtified us pre-pairing.

> In his November 1, 2024 letter to Uber, President Riccobono said, in relevant part:
>
> "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."

I know – I was involved in the meeting where we learned about it, denounced it at the time, voiced my opposition to it when it remained part of the pilot, and brought it to President Riccobono’s attention.

> In your email, you said, "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."
> I am gratified that there is an option for you, the passenger, to identify yourself as a service animal user only after you are paired with the driver. That this option exists is a point in Uber's favor. However, the fact that this is not the default and only choice once the passenger has chosen to self-identify represents for me yet another reason for us in the National Federation of the Blind to continue regarding Uber with more than a little skepticism and certainly with a lot of suspicion. Uber is definitely not on our side when it comes to equal rights for guide dog users.

I am certainly skeptical of rideshare companies, and particularly Uber. I think there are people who are on our side (the access team and the rider team) and people who are not (the driver team). I am frequently providing the people on our side with arguments why Uber should not listen to the people who are not on our side. It is frustrating to seay the least, and sometimes feels thankless when they do things like give riders an option to disclose pre-paring.

I was told that many riders indicated they wanted to inform drivers as soon as possible about their service animal to ensure that they did not get a driver who would deny them. I’m unsure how Uber asked the question, as I would answer that I want the driver to be informed as soon as I am paired so that if they deny I can be re-paired quickly and they can be teporarily deactivated pending investigation and permanent deactivation. That is not what Uber chose to do. I understand that some folks might want to choose to put their use of a service animal on the offer card, as they may be very anti-confrontational and may want to just avoid even having to complain. I would tell those people that I’m sorry but the law does not permit people to choose to be subjected to unaddressable discrimination, just as it does not allow them to choose to work for subminimum wages.

The only reason I and other NFB members agreeed to participate in the pilot was other options that did not disclose pre-pairing. We will continue to push Uber to not include a pre-paring SelfID option. I continue to press Uber on this at every opportunity in the pilot. We will push Lyft to only disclose after pairing if Lyft chooses to offer a SelfID option. I am also involved in other advocacy with NFB to pressure the rideshare companies on this point from another angle.

I hope this clarifies my position and thoughts on SelfID, and reassures you that there is no daylight between my, NAGDU’s, and NFB’s position on SelfID for rideshare.

Yours,

/Æ

_______________________________________________
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/carcione%40access.net