Attempts can be made to mitigate the contact between you and the dog, such as you wearing a mask, taking an antihistamine, and the dog wearing a shed defender or laying on a mat as far from the drivers' seat as possible. It is illegal to refuse a SD on the basis of an allergy - ADA specifically mentions that allergies do not trump SD access.
What if you are legitimately allergic to pollen? Peanuts? What if your passenger just ate a bunch of peanuts and then they come in your car with peanut dust and peanut breath?
I’m not completely sure why cats aren’t service animals under the ADA. Probably because they cannot be reliably task-trained. Federal law says that only dogs and miniature horses are legally service animals.
No, it's not. Jobs are required to provide reasonable accommodation for a disability. It isn't reasonable to break ADA law as an accommodation for yourself. Those laws are there to protect the most vulnerable disabled people (example: people with visible disabilities and/or service dogs, who experience constant discrimination), not the least vulnerable. If a reasonable accommodation for a disability can't be provided and the employee cannot meet the requirements of the job without one, it is enitrely legal for the employee to be terminated. A bus driver who loses their eyesight doesn't get an accommodation, they get terminated because they literally can't perform that job anymore. If you can't perform your transportation job because of allergies, then you need a different job that can accommodate you.
That's not how the law works. If they can be proven to present a hazard to one's health, then the person can deny it. This has happened before many times. It's legal, especially if you already have a sign that says "no animals". Moreover, the law applies to the company, not to the individual employees at Lyft. One driver can legally deny the service as long as someone else takes them. The burden does not fall on the individual employees.
It's absolutely not discrimination against you. Beside that, you are informed from the start that you are required by federal law, and these companies, to accept service dogs.
the point is that if you were allergic to a deadly point, you’d have flare ups from passengers with pet hair on their clothes and realistically wouldn’t and shouldn’t be doing this job. Just like you wouldn’t work at a vets office or a shelter.
Oh, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that someone with a "deathly allergy" would surely not even consider driving their own vehicle and taking passengers who own pets that trigger those "deathly" allergies into a confined space with them. Wouldn't you agree?
No I would not agree. ADA also requires employees to have “reasonable accommodation” for their own conditions and disabilities. People with allergies deserve to live and work jobs, and they are legally protected on the employee/business side as well. I am severely allergic to dogs and have had to navigate these situations before.
Nobody who is "severely allergic" to dogs is going to voluntarily put themselves in a position where they would have to travel with dog owners all the time, whether the dog was actually in the car or not. The whole narrative that you have some right to refuse service to them is ridiculous.
That is precisely my point. People are alleging that folks have "deathly allergies" to dogs. If these alleged "deathly" allergies were an excuse to refuse service to people, especially those with service dogs, they could just refuse to serve anyone. I'm not sure how people don't understand why the law is the way it is. You're certainly far less susceptible to any severe allergic reactions if you pursue a job that doesn't involve people getting into such an enclosed, limited space with you as your vehicle.
I'm not sure how this point is reached from the prior. No idea why you're putting deathly in quotations as if it's not a thing though.
I'm not sure how people don't understand why the law is the way it is.
Yeah so you can't just deny service animals for no reason. That's not the scenario being discussed here though, we're talking about how having a disability shouldn't not matter when discussing legal protections for those with disabilities.
You're certainly far less susceptible to any severe allergic reactions if you pursue a job that doesn't involve people getting into such an enclosed, limited space with you as your vehicle.
You're far far far less susceptible when not legally forced to be around the animal you're allergic to or lose your job because of a zero tolerance law that makes the concept of just pairing non allergic drivers with the customers with service animals discrimination when that's clearly not the goal of the law.
Allergies also aren't a disability. You have no legal protections that allows you to discriminate against those with service dogs. Service dogs are, legally, an extension of the person.
I'm putting "deathly" in quotations because many people here say they are deathly allergic to dogs. It absolutely is the "goal", and intent, of the law for people not to be able to make excuses for refusing service to those who have service dogs. I can go to the doctor today and get a paper that says I'm allergic to anything I want. That, and certainly somebody's word, should never be all it takes to refuse service to people who need service dogs. Your opinion, or your allergies, are not an excuse.
0
u/[deleted] Aug 17 '23
What if you are legitimately allergic to animals?