We evaluate the following claims related to fairness-based objective functions presented in the original work: (1) For the four objective functions, the success rate in the worst-off neighborhood increases monotonically with respect to the overall success rate. (2) The proposed objective functions do not lead to a higher income for the lowest-earning drivers, nor a higher total income, compared to a request-maximizing objective function. (3) The driver-side fairness objective can outperform a request-maximizing objective in terms of overall success rate and success rate in the worst-off neighborhood. We evaluate the claims by the original authors by (a) replicating their experiments, (b) testing for sensitivity to a different value estimator, (c) examining sensitivity to changes in the preprocessing method, and (d) testing for generalizability by applying their method to a different dataset. We reproduced the first claim since we observed the same monotonic increase of the success rate in the worst-off neighborhood with respect to the overall success rate. The second claim we did not reproduce, since we found that the driver-side fairness objective function obtains a higher income for the lowest-earning drivers than the request-maximizing objective function. We reproduced the third claim, since the driver-side objective function performs best in terms of overall success rate and success rate in the worst-off neighborhood, and also reduces the spread of income. Changes of the value estimator, preprocessing method and even dataset all led to consistent results regarding these claims.