List Of Passengers We're Allowed To Refuse?

ten25

Member
I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
  • Pax with young children and no car seat
  • Minors
  • People with open containers
  • Someone carrying a weapon
I'm especially interested in knowing who we're able to refuse due to medical conditions that would require you to assist them in getting in/out of your car and/or who may have a wheelchair that doesn't fold and other non-ambulatory passengers ... without being in violation of the ADA or other laws.

Mainly just want to limit my liability in situations where someone should have called for a medical transport or other messed up / dangerous situations...
 

Demon

Well-Known Member
I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
  • Pax with young children and no car seat
  • Minors
  • People with open containers
  • Someone carrying a weapon
I'm especially interested in knowing who we're able to refuse due to medical conditions that would require you to assist them in getting in/out of your car and/or who may have a wheelchair that doesn't fold and other non-ambulatory passengers ... without being in violation of the ADA or other laws.

Mainly just want to limit my liability in situations where someone should have called for a medical transport or other messed up / dangerous situations...
Then you should ask an attorney who specializes in this.
 

TemptingFate

Well-Known Member
You can refuse service to any rider at your discretion as long as you aren't violating the law by discriminating against them based on their protected status; race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental disability, genetic information, retaliation, pregnancy, or veteran status.
Regardless of protected status, riders can be refused service if they pose a direct threat to health and safety.
 

touberornottouber

Well-Known Member
I'm especially interested in knowing who we're able to refuse due to medical conditions that would require you to assist them in getting in/out of your car and/or who may have a wheelchair that doesn't fold and other non-ambulatory passengers ... without being in violation of the ADA or other laws.

Mainly just want to limit my liability in situations where someone should have called for a medical transport or other messed up / dangerous situations...
It's a good question. My personal philosophy right now is if I have to get within a foot of the passenger or touch them or their possessions at all then I should cancel the ride. This includes anyone needing help getting into the vehicle. Anyone with a walker (That I have to put in the trunk).

You can get the virus simply by being next to someone with it who is breathing. Being right next to them is very dangerous. Driving them is already dangerous but being close enough to where you are helping them in the car is even worse.

If you go to dentist's office right now there will be a person standing out side wearing a face mask who will ask you questions, take your temperature, make you use hand sanitizer. If you answer any questions in a way which makes them think you might have the virus, you will be refused service. So for anyone saying it is my job to just shut up and risk it, there you go.
 

Trafficat

Well-Known Member
I would like to compile a list of passengers we're allowed to LEGALLY refuse to take. Note the distinction of LEGALLY (not interested in what Uber's TOS says)
  • Pax with young children and no car seat
  • Minors
  • People with open containers
  • Someone carrying a weapon
I'm especially interested in knowing who we're able to refuse due to medical conditions that would require you to assist them in getting in/out of your car and/or who may have a wheelchair that doesn't fold and other non-ambulatory passengers ... without being in violation of the ADA or other laws.

Mainly just want to limit my liability in situations where someone should have called for a medical transport or other messed up / dangerous situations...
Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.
 

welikecamping

Well-Known Member
I've had passengers try to overload me with luggage. According to Uber support, if I cannot safely carry all the luggage and passengers, I can refuse and request they cancel and order a larger vehicle. I finally got fed up with the 4 college kids with 4 golf bags and 4 giant luggage bags. There was some creative packing to get them to the airport. Do you think they even tipped? I took them but wrote up a very angry message to uber support about it.

Since then, if all of your luggage cannot fit into my large trunk, then I refuse to take you. The passenger cabin is for passengers, not luggage.
 

TemptingFate

Well-Known Member
Depends on your state. In my state, age discrimination is against the law. You cannot legally refuse a minor.
Not sure where you got that. Refusing to transport a minor is not illegal in any state.
Age discrimination refers to older people. Minors are not of legal age so they are not considered competent in a legal sense, can't enter into a legal contract. Discrimination against minors is OK, even required in some cases; alcohol and cigarette sales, casino gambling floor, sexual relations with an adult, etc.
 

Trafficat

Well-Known Member
Not sure where you got that. Refusing to transport a minor is not illegal in any state.
Age discrimination refers to older people. Minors are not of legal age so they are not considered competent in a legal sense, can't enter into a legal contract. Discrimination against minors is OK, even required in some cases; alcohol and cigarette sales, casino gambling floor, sexual relations with an adult, etc.
I got it from the Nevada Revised Statutes. The flaw in your thinking is that you assume laws are based on common sense. They are not. Age discrimination is making a decision based upon someone's age. Different levels of government use different definitions for age discrimination. The definition of age discrimination used in federal law in employee discrimination cases refers to old people specifically.

However, this definition is NOT used in state law.

We have discussed this many times on this board with regards to Nevada state law and what it boils down to is that people who don't really have a good understanding of how law works at the state and federal level and are, as far as I can tell, incapable or unwilling to go through the effort to try and understand. I can post my state law, and people will still go "but federal employment law *blah blah blah*." It isn't a matter of federal employment law. It is a state law in my state.

Even when I post it full out, people will say "yeah, it says that, but it doesn't make sense because it was intended to apply to old people". That's not how the law works. And furthermore there is no evidence that Nevada transportation discrimination laws are intended to apply to old people, other than the gut feeling of drivers that hate the idea of transporting kids being upset by that notion.

I've NEVER heard of a driver refusing a passenger for being old, have you? Do you think they passed a law to prevent discrimination against people who are not being discriminated against?
 
Last edited:

Trafficat

Well-Known Member
discrimination against minors obviously only applies in certain situations
Yes. And this is one of them.

Just like drivers always say "I don't have to pick up service dogs because I'm allergic" until they get their permits taken away for violating service dog rules. People always like to imagine exceptions to the laws that don't exist.

People are free to think discrimination against minors only applies to circumstances they agree with. I however, choose to go with what the actual law says rather than what I feel the law should say.

NRS 706A said:
2.  A driver shall not discriminate against a passenger or potential passenger on account of national origin, religion, age, disability, sex, race, color, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
See this thread here for more discussion on this topic: https://uberpeople.net/threads/suspended-deactivated-for-asking-id.312065/page-10#post-4769479

We can beat the horse all day, but what it boils down to largely is drivers who don't even live in Nevada beating a dead horse about how it could not possibly be true that any state could possibly think a person under the age of 18 should have a need for public transportation services, and people making odd diversions into laws that discriminate against minors for alcohol etc., when the SCOPE of this law only applies to rideshare drivers, although similar laws in Nevada make it so that people under the age of 18 can ride other forms of transportation.

I think that's one of the biggest problems that people have understanding laws is understanding that laws have scope. This state law doesn't apply to bars, or drinking or machinegun ownership or voting. This law has nothing to do with employment. This law only says that a driver shall not discriminate against a passenger based on certain factors, and age is one of them.
 
Last edited:

Coachman

Well-Known Member
I've done over 5,000 rides and I can't remember refusing anyone. I guess there was one group of five or six at Waffle House once that I turned down.
 

TemptingFate

Well-Known Member
So according to this misreading of the law, an Uber driver is compelled to take a solo 5 year old because refusing a child is age discrimination. That's just absurd.

Unaccompanied minors can be refused service in hotels, bars, liquor stores, gun stores, cigarette sales, R rated movies, etc. They can't rent an apartment or a car. Yet, there are laws against age discrimination in all those businesses. How is it possible?

Because age discrimination laws were not written to protect minors.

Uber drivers are not compelled by age discrimination laws to take unaccompanied minors. It's a disservice and a danger to drivers to make them believe that they must take minors.

Consult a lawyer on the applicable laws. You may be surprised. If a lawyer says I'm wrong on this, please let me know.
 

Trafficat

Well-Known Member
So according to this misreading of the law, an Uber driver is compelled to take a solo 5 year old because refusing a child is age discrimination. That's just absurd.
There is no misreading. People want to read into it things that aren't there.

Unaccompanied minors can be refused service in hotels, bars, liquor stores, gun stores, cigarette sales, R rated movies, etc. They can't rent an apartment or a car. Yet, there are laws against age discrimination in all those businesses. How is it possible?
I know this is a difficult concept to grasp... but there are different laws that apply in different circumstances and in different jurisdictions. It is illegal to sell a rifle to a person under 18, but did you know that it violates age discrimination laws in some states to refuse to sell a rifle to someone because they are under the age of 21? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stores-likely-face-more-lawsuits-over-ban-under-21-gun-n854996

Because age discrimination laws were not written to protect minors.
Actually, they were. But even if they weren't, it doesn't matter, because the law doesn't care what the intentions of each of the assemblymen and senators who voted on it were. Each assemblyman and senator may have had a different intention.

Uber drivers are not compelled by age discrimination laws to take unaccompanied minors. It's a disservice and a danger to drivers to make them believe that they must take minors.

Consult a lawyer on the applicable laws. You may be surprised. If a lawyer says I'm wrong on this, please let me know.
I have quoted actual laws. In this post I provide a link to a lawyer that says Dicks violated the law on a similarly worded statute:

"The wording of the statute only has one reasonable interpretation, and that is you cannot discriminate against 18-20 year olds in offering the sale of goods which they're legally allowed to purchase, be they rifles, or any other legal product," he said.
I'm not too interested in contacting a lawyer to affirm what the law quite clearly states. But if you can find a lawyer to speak specifically about Nevada law and explain how it doesn't mean what it says, then let me know.

That's why Uber drivers get deactivated over the service dog issue. No matter how you write the law, people will say "Oh, it wasn't meant to apply to me! It is so absurd! No one could have expected the law to require a disabled person with allergies to allow a dog!" Oh, except it does.
 
Last edited:
Top