The accommodation is for that driver to provide medical evidence when they're employed, and then for Uber to only allow drivers with previously declared allergies to decline dogs.
Since Uber still claims it's not an employer it's going to continue to not provide this, which means they'll face dual claims: from guide-dog owning passengers and allergic-to-dog drivers, both of which are being discriminated against by Uber's illegal practice.
It's not a settled question whether a taxi can refuse service to a person with a service animal to accommodate a driver's allergies. Some jurisdictions allow it, some do not. It may also depend on the severity of the driver's allergy.
Since Uber still claims it's not an employer it's going to continue to not provide this, which means they'll face dual claims: from guide-dog owning passengers and allergic-to-dog drivers, both of which are being discriminated against by Uber's illegal practice.