Inexcusable behavior from both the driver and law enforcement. I assume the author's legal assessment is correct, since she is an American lawyer and I am neither. It's unfortunate that diplomacy...
Inexcusable behavior from both the driver and law enforcement.
I assume the author's legal assessment is correct, since she is an American lawyer and I am neither. It's unfortunate that diplomacy is not very effective against those unwilling to listen. The driver did not seem open to a discussion about his legal obligations - he wanted that dog out of his $60k Mercedes, stat.
It's easy to say in hindsight, but I think this was a good case for reading the room, picking your battles and leaving the car right then and there. By all means, leave a bad review and issue a formal complaint to Uber, seems like there may have been grounds to sue even before the assault and battery. That escalation, leading to the sadly common police display of racist prejudice at gunpoint, was the rotten cherry on top.
Regardless, it does look like Ronza has the legal might and support to win this case. Hopefully the driver, Uber and/or the police officers involved will be forced to face some sort of consequences for this mess.
The common-sense thing to do if the driver's an asshole would be to leave. This is someone you want to stay away from. Call another Uber. (And of course complain to Uber about it afterwards - that...
The common-sense thing to do if the driver's an asshole would be to leave. This is someone you want to stay away from. Call another Uber. (And of course complain to Uber about it afterwards - that driver should get fired.)
Even when you have a legal right to something, there's such a thing as avoiding physical confrontation, and attempting to physically force someone to do what they don't want to do is not it.
What I'm saying is: there is actually a choice here, stay or leave. One of them escalates a confrontation and the other one avoids it. Maybe sometimes, escalation is the right choice, but it's a...
What I'm saying is: there is actually a choice here, stay or leave. One of them escalates a confrontation and the other one avoids it.
Maybe sometimes, escalation is the right choice, but it's a choice.
She was standing up for (well, sitting for) her rights by remaining in the vehicle. That means the driver can't de-escalate by leaving with his car. It forces a confrontation of some sort. It...
She was standing up for (well, sitting for) her rights by remaining in the vehicle. That means the driver can't de-escalate by leaving with his car. It forces a confrontation of some sort. It would be consistent to celebrate that choice and say, good for her for standing up to him! At some cost to herself.
I'd look at it and say that confronting one driver is not worth it and there are other ways, but people can disagree about that.
The thing I don't like is calling people names for taking the other side of that debate, calling it "soft victim blaming," as if arguing for the other choice is illegitimate. Enough of that! This "victim blaming" accusation gets thrown around too easily. If you want to argue in favor of her standing up for her rights, do that directly.
It is soft victim blaming though. You have RIGHTS under the ADA, and any attempt to undermine these rights is illegal. And if no one stands up for their rights, the rights effectively disappear....
It is soft victim blaming though. You have RIGHTS under the ADA, and any attempt to undermine these rights is illegal. And if no one stands up for their rights, the rights effectively disappear.
There's a confrontation no matter what. if she had "just" gotten out of the car she would've given up in an ideological confrontation where she was 100% in the right
I was also quite surprised by her decision to remain in the car during and after the physical assault - and while she had every right to do so, I don’t think it’s fair to characterise the...
I was also quite surprised by her decision to remain in the car during and after the physical assault - and while she had every right to do so, I don’t think it’s fair to characterise the alternative as giving up.
To me it seems pretty similar to saying “no” if a threatening, potentially armed person demands your wallet. Of course they have no right to demand that, and of course you’re not at fault for refusing - but you are at risk for refusing, and the overwhelming advice is to comply, remove yourself from the danger as fast as possible, and follow up afterwards.
If you’d asked me as a hypothetical how this would’ve played out after he refused to take them, I’d suggest they’d inform him of the law again while recording to get concrete evidence, leave the vehicle, and file suit against him and against Uber the next day. That’s how I’d expect a lawyer to stand up for her legal rights.
I certainly don’t place blame on her for the choice she did make, and I assume it was a calculated risk to show how willing to escalate he was. But it was a risk, and the alternative wasn’t something I’d class as giving up.
Insisting on your rights is a choice. (As a driver, insisting on your rights is never worth it.) It would be a tactical retreat. It's not necessarily giving up entirely, though. I don't really...
Insisting on your rights is a choice. (As a driver, insisting on your rights is never worth it.)
It would be a tactical retreat. It's not necessarily giving up entirely, though. I don't really know how effective complaints about drivers are with Uber, but I think drivers do care about their ratings, and it's possible to make more serious complaints. And perhaps more could be done with the help of some lawyers.
I guess it's true that it's a "confrontation no matter what" (since it already started) but there are still choices about whether or how to continue it.
I think the thing is though she could still not give up. She could have reported the driver after finding another driver who wouldn't have forced the confrontation. This might have even been more...
I think the thing is though she could still not give up. She could have reported the driver after finding another driver who wouldn't have forced the confrontation. This might have even been more effective cause it didn't give the driver heads up to make up a lie to Uber before they got to Uber first.
I think the point is that forcing confrontation isn't always the best way to do it and yes, there are other ways to do it (especially in this case. Sure, in some cases there may not be but there is no reason she couldn't have still reported the driver to uber after finding a different driver).
All I am saying is that her discussion with the driver was going nowhere, and being legally in the right would not protect her from an immediate threat of violence. I sympathize with her...
All I am saying is that her discussion with the driver was going nowhere, and being legally in the right would not protect her from an immediate threat of violence.
I sympathize with her situation, and of course she should fight for her rights. But maybe that was not the best time, place, or attack vector?
She does highlight the insidious problems in Uber and similar companies, such as the lackluster training of their employee in common legal situations like these. That is worth pursuing, and this messed up experience helps build up her case.
You can call me a coward for thinking that retreating to fight another day (or in another way) is a more sensible course of action, but in no way am I blaming her for the despicable actions of the driver and police officers.
The problem with Uber and similar companies is they are trying to get around employment laws by not having htem as employees. Which also means they aren't responsible for training them either.
The problem with Uber and similar companies is they are trying to get around employment laws by not having htem as employees. Which also means they aren't responsible for training them either.
Just to add, in regards to a true taxi service, they would have known better than to try and kick a service animal out of their vehicle, but since Uber and the like have all but run those...
Just to add, in regards to a true taxi service, they would have known better than to try and kick a service animal out of their vehicle, but since Uber and the like have all but run those companies out of most cities, they have an even greater obligation to be ADA compliant. Seems like something the driver should have been aware of before offering his 60,000 dollar car up for transportation services. These "gig" economy companies need to be taken to task for these kinds of abuses. Good on them for standing their ground, but damn is the rest disappointing.
You can be morally right and push the issue at hand given that you are legally right but you should also understand that you are putting yourself at risk of violence from both the driver and the...
You can be morally right and push the issue at hand given that you are legally right but you should also understand that you are putting yourself at risk of violence from both the driver and the police. Given that this was in Texas I wouldn’t be surprised to hear of a driver pulling a weapon himself in such situations.
It shouldn’t be this way, but I’ll take my physical safety over escalating these situations. Document everything and hit Uber with a lawsuit later, that would likely lead to greater change than trying to force your legal rights via police at midnight in a hostile situation.
It was a highly unfortunate incident and she and her companions were always in the legal right. However. She firmly had her lawyer hat on and she forgot she was a brown woman, in a hijab, with a...
It was a highly unfortunate incident and she and her companions were always in the legal right.
However. She firmly had her lawyer hat on and she forgot she was a brown woman, in a hijab, with a disability, in Texas.
Edit. No she didn't forget. She chose to stand her ground and she's much much much braver person than I am, and why I am not a lawyer doing important human rights stuff and she is. /Edit
I applaud her courage and I hope she and her lawyer friends get their pound of flesh, but even as a by stander reading her words knowing she's okay, it is way too much adrenaline for me. If I had a loved one in that situation, their safety is the only thing I want out of that interaction and I would have wanted them to get out from the first time the man raises his voice
Disappointing all the way around. The response from Uber and law enforcement seems on brand. I am kind of surprised they didn't settle with her. I would assume since she literally works for a...
Disappointing all the way around. The response from Uber and law enforcement seems on brand.
I am kind of surprised they didn't settle with her. I would assume since she literally works for a group of attorneys, they'd know she has the resources to pursue it. But maybe that's just how deep the discrimination goes.
If your standard procedure is to ignore and violate anti-discrimination laws, that constitutes discrimination. It's surprisingly consistent dedication to that discrimination, though.
If your standard procedure is to ignore and violate anti-discrimination laws, that constitutes discrimination. It's surprisingly consistent dedication to that discrimination, though.
Think you’re underselling it to try and fit your argument. Uber is pretty notorious for ignoring any law they think they can, discrimination or otherwise. Like yes most murders include some form...
Think you’re underselling it to try and fit your argument. Uber is pretty notorious for ignoring any law they think they can, discrimination or otherwise.
Like yes most murders include some form of assault or battery but it’s not really the focus at that point
Inexcusable behavior from both the driver and law enforcement.
I assume the author's legal assessment is correct, since she is an American lawyer and I am neither. It's unfortunate that diplomacy is not very effective against those unwilling to listen. The driver did not seem open to a discussion about his legal obligations - he wanted that dog out of his $60k Mercedes, stat.
It's easy to say in hindsight, but I think this was a good case for reading the room, picking your battles and leaving the car right then and there. By all means, leave a bad review and issue a formal complaint to Uber, seems like there may have been grounds to sue even before the assault and battery. That escalation, leading to the sadly common police display of racist prejudice at gunpoint, was the rotten cherry on top.
Regardless, it does look like Ronza has the legal might and support to win this case. Hopefully the driver, Uber and/or the police officers involved will be forced to face some sort of consequences for this mess.
The common-sense thing to do if the driver's an asshole would be to leave. This is someone you want to stay away from. Call another Uber. (And of course complain to Uber about it afterwards - that driver should get fired.)
Even when you have a legal right to something, there's such a thing as avoiding physical confrontation, and attempting to physically force someone to do what they don't want to do is not it.
What I'm saying is: there is actually a choice here, stay or leave. One of them escalates a confrontation and the other one avoids it.
Maybe sometimes, escalation is the right choice, but it's a choice.
The driver is of course choosing escalation too.
She was standing up for (well, sitting for) her rights by remaining in the vehicle. That means the driver can't de-escalate by leaving with his car. It forces a confrontation of some sort. It would be consistent to celebrate that choice and say, good for her for standing up to him! At some cost to herself.
I'd look at it and say that confronting one driver is not worth it and there are other ways, but people can disagree about that.
The thing I don't like is calling people names for taking the other side of that debate, calling it "soft victim blaming," as if arguing for the other choice is illegitimate. Enough of that! This "victim blaming" accusation gets thrown around too easily. If you want to argue in favor of her standing up for her rights, do that directly.
It is soft victim blaming though. You have RIGHTS under the ADA, and any attempt to undermine these rights is illegal. And if no one stands up for their rights, the rights effectively disappear.
There's a confrontation no matter what. if she had "just" gotten out of the car she would've given up in an ideological confrontation where she was 100% in the right
I was also quite surprised by her decision to remain in the car during and after the physical assault - and while she had every right to do so, I don’t think it’s fair to characterise the alternative as giving up.
To me it seems pretty similar to saying “no” if a threatening, potentially armed person demands your wallet. Of course they have no right to demand that, and of course you’re not at fault for refusing - but you are at risk for refusing, and the overwhelming advice is to comply, remove yourself from the danger as fast as possible, and follow up afterwards.
If you’d asked me as a hypothetical how this would’ve played out after he refused to take them, I’d suggest they’d inform him of the law again while recording to get concrete evidence, leave the vehicle, and file suit against him and against Uber the next day. That’s how I’d expect a lawyer to stand up for her legal rights.
I certainly don’t place blame on her for the choice she did make, and I assume it was a calculated risk to show how willing to escalate he was. But it was a risk, and the alternative wasn’t something I’d class as giving up.
Insisting on your rights is a choice. (As a driver, insisting on your rights is never worth it.)
It would be a tactical retreat. It's not necessarily giving up entirely, though. I don't really know how effective complaints about drivers are with Uber, but I think drivers do care about their ratings, and it's possible to make more serious complaints. And perhaps more could be done with the help of some lawyers.
I guess it's true that it's a "confrontation no matter what" (since it already started) but there are still choices about whether or how to continue it.
I think the thing is though she could still not give up. She could have reported the driver after finding another driver who wouldn't have forced the confrontation. This might have even been more effective cause it didn't give the driver heads up to make up a lie to Uber before they got to Uber first.
I think the point is that forcing confrontation isn't always the best way to do it and yes, there are other ways to do it (especially in this case. Sure, in some cases there may not be but there is no reason she couldn't have still reported the driver to uber after finding a different driver).
All I am saying is that her discussion with the driver was going nowhere, and being legally in the right would not protect her from an immediate threat of violence.
I sympathize with her situation, and of course she should fight for her rights. But maybe that was not the best time, place, or attack vector?
She does highlight the insidious problems in Uber and similar companies, such as the lackluster training of their employee in common legal situations like these. That is worth pursuing, and this messed up experience helps build up her case.
You can call me a coward for thinking that retreating to fight another day (or in another way) is a more sensible course of action, but in no way am I blaming her for the despicable actions of the driver and police officers.
The problem with Uber and similar companies is they are trying to get around employment laws by not having htem as employees. Which also means they aren't responsible for training them either.
Just to add, in regards to a true taxi service, they would have known better than to try and kick a service animal out of their vehicle, but since Uber and the like have all but run those companies out of most cities, they have an even greater obligation to be ADA compliant. Seems like something the driver should have been aware of before offering his 60,000 dollar car up for transportation services. These "gig" economy companies need to be taken to task for these kinds of abuses. Good on them for standing their ground, but damn is the rest disappointing.
You can be morally right and push the issue at hand given that you are legally right but you should also understand that you are putting yourself at risk of violence from both the driver and the police. Given that this was in Texas I wouldn’t be surprised to hear of a driver pulling a weapon himself in such situations.
It shouldn’t be this way, but I’ll take my physical safety over escalating these situations. Document everything and hit Uber with a lawsuit later, that would likely lead to greater change than trying to force your legal rights via police at midnight in a hostile situation.
It was a highly unfortunate incident and she and her companions were always in the legal right.
However. She firmly had her lawyer hat on and she forgot she was a brown woman, in a hijab, with a disability, in Texas.
Edit. No she didn't forget. She chose to stand her ground and she's much much much braver person than I am, and why I am not a lawyer doing important human rights stuff and she is. /Edit
I applaud her courage and I hope she and her lawyer friends get their pound of flesh, but even as a by stander reading her words knowing she's okay, it is way too much adrenaline for me. If I had a loved one in that situation, their safety is the only thing I want out of that interaction and I would have wanted them to get out from the first time the man raises his voice
Disappointing all the way around. The response from Uber and law enforcement seems on brand.
I am kind of surprised they didn't settle with her. I would assume since she literally works for a group of attorneys, they'd know she has the resources to pursue it. But maybe that's just how deep the discrimination goes.
Eh it’s probably not discrimination so much as their standard procedure. Uber ignores local governments. A lawyer is whatever to them
If your standard procedure is to ignore and violate anti-discrimination laws, that constitutes discrimination. It's surprisingly consistent dedication to that discrimination, though.
Think you’re underselling it to try and fit your argument. Uber is pretty notorious for ignoring any law they think they can, discrimination or otherwise.
Like yes most murders include some form of assault or battery but it’s not really the focus at that point
How EVERYONE handled this is ridiculous.