Seems poor Uber can't get a break. It appears that the California affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) can proceed with their class action suit against Uber for violating ADA laws. California federal judge Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on Friday, April 17, dismissed an Uber motin to dismiss in a case started last September in National Federation of the Blind of California et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. See news snippets below the fold
From a Law360.com article (I could only get one article from them), we have two items of import:
“UberX drivers are refusing to transport many blind individuals who use service animals, including members of NFB of California,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in the 24-page complaint. “Further, UberX drivers across the United States are likewise refusing to transport blind individuals, including identified UberX drivers who repeatedly denied rides to one blind woman on 12 separate occasions, charged blind riders cancellation fees and abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather, all because of guide dogs.”
The plaintiffs also allege that when not denying service outright, some UberX drivers “seriously mishandle” the service animals and even harass the blind customers. In one instance, according to NFB of California, an UberX driver forced a customer’s guide dog into the closed trunk of the company’s sedan before driving.
Now, I am more of a cat person, but a service animal, at least to me, is an extension of the person it is assisting and is part of a whole - take the person, take the animal. But, since they are not taxi's (according to themselves), they don't have to obey laws they don't like and that they don't think apply to them. Maybe I should let the
lawsuit itself speak a little:
Further, UberX drivers across the United States are likewise refusing to transport blind individuals, including identified UberX drivers who repeatedly denied rides to one blind woman on twelve separate occasions, charged blind riders cancellation fees, and abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather, all because of guide dogs.
In total, Plaintiffs are aware of more than thirty instances where drivers of UberX vehicles refused to transport blind individuals with service animals. UberX drivers that refused to transport these blind individuals did so after they initially agreed to transport the riders. The UberX drivers denied the requested transportation service after the drivers had arrived and discovered that the riders used service animals.
In addition, some UberX drivers seriously mishandle guide dogs or harass blind customers with guide dogs even when they do not outright deny the provision of taxi service. For example, Leena Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver forced Ms. Dawes’ guide dog into the closed trunk of the UberX sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. When Ms. Dawes realized where the driver had placed her dog, she pleaded with the driver to pull over so that she could retrieve her dog from the trunk, but the driver refused her request. Other blind customers with guide dogs have been yelled at by Uber drivers who are hostile toward their guide dogs.
And now for a word from the defendant (from the previously mentioned Ars Technica article):
We remain confident in the facts surrounding this case. The Uber app is built to expand access to transportation options for all, including users with visual impairments and other disabilities. It is Uber’s policy that driver partners are expected to comply with local, state and federal laws regarding the transportation of service animals, and we have consistently communicated this policy to drivers nationwide.
For further information, here is a
snippet from the ADA site:
Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go. For example, in a hospital it would be inappropriate to exclude a service animal from areas such as patient rooms, clinics, cafeterias, or examination rooms. However, it may be appropriate to exclude a service animal from operating rooms or burn units where the animal’s presence may compromise a sterile environment.
And last, but not least (I promise), we have
this from the IRS on Taxi service (bolding mine):
Taxicab Industry Defined
The taxicab industry provides passenger transportation. Taxicabs carry passengers for a fare calculated by a taximeter, which measures time and distance traveled. Potential passengers engage the service by hailing a cruising taxicab on the street, at a taxi stand or on a for-hire basis.
For-hire rides are those the passenger arranges for in advance with a taxicab operator who dispatches the passenger information to the driver via radio, cellular telephone or on-board computer. Depending on local jurisdiction, taxicabs may legally be able to both cruise/wait at taxi stands and operate as for-hire.