::face palm:: Jesus, I'm one of the few people on here who actually have a legitimate hack/limo license. I wouldn't just make this stuff up.
Look up SB984 which is working its way through Harrisburg. The first five or six pages describe the conditions which define how taxis, limos and TNC operate. Taxis are common carriers while TNCs, the document insists (for better or for worse) are not common carriers. For that reason alone, an Uber driver is not a taxi driver by another name.
As for the ADA requirements. In 16 years of taxi driving, I have never once been sent to a call and unexpectedly discovered my pax to have a dog with them, service or otherwise. The pax have always informed dispatch of their pooch. I think of myself as a bit of a dog on my best days, so it is never an issue with me. The taxi company I drive for is responsible for pairing a capable driver to the call.
My point is that regardless of the law, through proper dispatching and communication there should be no need to force any particular driver to run a call they aren't comfortable running. No one wants to be paired with a driver who is suddenly uncomfortable or distracted. Uber seems eager to distance itself from having to make individual decisions in order to fulfill ADA obligations. That seems rather clear, the burden is on the driver.
There is a certain logic behind the manner in which Uber handles the entire issue. Being a TNC driver is very casual, drivers are risking their necks and their often expensive cars. Hauling around strangers dogs is an example of a situation where it is suddenly hard to ignore the kind of wear and tear your car is subjected to. It seems likely most TNC drivers aren't going to be into allowing animals...... The TNC companies simply don't account for wear and tear to the cars. The result is Uber makes it super hard to excuse oneself from such duty or everyone would be doing it and make it impossible for them to be compliant at all........ This is a minor shortcoming.