Uber in US court for refusing disabled passengers
Uber drivers are said to regularly leave passengers with disabilities behind. Uber itself also comes off badly in a lawsuit brought by the US government.
Many Uber drivers (not pictured) do not tolerate dogs, even guide dogs, according to the lawsuit.
(Image: Grant CC BY-2.0)
The US government has made serious allegations of discrimination against disabled passengers in a new lawsuit against the ride-hailing company Uber. Its drivers, but also Uber itself, repeatedly violate the US federal law ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Passengers with foldable wheelchairs or guide dogs are regularly refused transportation.
In addition, there are unlawful surcharges, cancellation fees despite refusal of transportation, verbal abuse, degradation and inappropriate questions. Even the request of passengers with limited mobility to use the passenger seat is often refused.
Uber knows about the problems, but does too little about them. The training of drivers and customer service is just as inadequate as their monitoring. Customers who are regularly victims of cheating are refused refunds of unauthorized fees because they have already applied for refunds of unauthorized fees too often.
Following a warning from the US Department of Justice, Uber only made superficial changes but did not put an end to the discrimination. The civil lawsuit (USA v Uber Technologies, U.S. District Court for Northern California, Case No. 3:25-cv-7731) seeks declaratory judgment of ADA violation, an injunction, requirements for better training and new internal rules, damages and a monetary penalty.
Allegations are not new
Uber denies the allegations. In an interview with heise online, the ride-hailing company refers to its zero-tolerance policy; drivers are regularly reminded of the legal requirements. If Uber detects a violation of the law, it takes measures up to and including permanently deactivating the driver's account. Uber also invests in technology, training, and a hotline so that affected passengers can complain.
Videos by heise
The problems have existed practically since Uber was founded. In particular, the rejection of passengers with guide dogs has already been the subject of several legal proceedings. The US National Federation of the Blind, for example, filed a class action lawsuit with the same court eleven years ago (National Federation of the Blind et al v Uber Technologies, Ref. 3:14-cv-04086), which resulted in a settlement two years later.
Although Uber did not acknowledge any legal infringement, it promised to quiz drivers in the USA and to kick them out after the first knowing refusal to transport a passenger with a guide dog. If it is not proven that they did so knowingly, they should be fired after two credible accusations. Heise online spoke to Kenneth Shiotani, lawyer for the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), about this settlement in 2017. At that time, the NDRN brought a lawsuit against Uber to force Uber's US fleet to have a minimum number of wheelchair-compatible vehicles (Access Living v Uber, US Federal District Court for Northern Illinois, 16-cv-9690).
Empfohlener redaktioneller Inhalt
Mit Ihrer Zustimmung wird hier ein externes Video (TargetVideo GmbH) geladen.
Ich bin damit einverstanden, dass mir externe Inhalte angezeigt werden. Damit können personenbezogene Daten an Drittplattformen (TargetVideo GmbH) übermittelt werden. Mehr dazu in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
A short time later, New York's RolIi drivers sued Uber for transportation(Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled (BCID) et al v Uber Technologies et al, first Supreme Court of New York of the County of New York, then US Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:17-cv-06399). After the City of New York issued an ordinance forcing Uber and Lyft to provide a certain percentage of wheelchair-compatible vehicles, the lawsuit was dropped. "While we ultimately want 100% accessibility for all taxis, Ubers and Lyfts, wheelchair users now have a decent chance of getting a wheelchair-accessible vehicle in some parts of the city", Joe Rappaport, Executive Director at BDIC, told heise online on Thursday.
Promises to blind people not kept
The settlement between Uber and the Association for the Blind was clearly not fully effective. In the three and a half years it has been in force, Uber has received more than 20,000 complaints about discrimination against passengers with guide dogs or other assistance animals in the USA.
In 2021, an arbitration court ordered Uber to pay 1.1 million US dollars because Uber chauffeurs had refused to transport blind San Francisco resident Lisa Irving with her guide dog more than two dozen times. Uber's argument that it was only arranging rides and was not responsible for the misconduct of the drivers did not convince the arbitration tribunal. It found that Uber is directly covered by the ADA.
Uber was able to nip a class action lawsuit filed the previous year by a blind person for repeated discrimination in the bud by invoking the arbitration clause in its terms and conditions(Hilbert v Uber Technologies, US Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:24-cv-00584). The action brought by the US government is therefore of great importance for the parties concerned because it is not subject to the arbitration clause.
(ds)
