Watch the video to follow the story from ABC News, Uber sued over alleged discrimination against people with disabilities.

According to the article the federal government recently said that it is suing Uber for allegedly discriminating against passengers with disabilities.

The Department of Justice said Uber drivers routinely refuse to serve individuals with disabilities, including those with service dogs. Uber is the largest ride-hailing company in the U.S.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit alleges that Uber drivers have charged illegal cleaning fees for service animal shedding and imposed cancellation fees after denying service. The lawsuit also alleges that drivers have refused to allow disabled individuals to sit in the front seat so they can use the back seat for mobility devices.

Disabled individuals have missed appointments, experienced significant delays and have been stranded in inclement weather, the lawsuit said.

Assistant Attorney General Dhillon’s Statement

“For too long, blind riders have suffered repeated ride denials by Uber because they are traveling with a service dog,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This lawsuit seeks to end this persistent discrimination and allow riders with disabilities to use Uber.”

Uber’s Response

In a recent statement, Uber said all its drivers must acknowledge and agree to comply with its service animal and accessibility policies.

Uber said it prohibits drivers from denying service to someone with a service animal and it requires drivers to provide transportation to a person with a disability if they get into the vehicle on their own. It also prohibits drivers from refusing to assist with the stowing of devices like walkers, crutches and folding wheelchairs.

“Riders who use guide dogs or other assistive devices deserve a safe, respectful and welcoming experience on Uber — full stop,” the company said. Uber said it disagrees with the allegations in the lawsuit.

Uber said it established a hotline in 2023 for customers who were denied a ride because of a service animal. Uber said when it confirms that a violation has occurred, it acts, including deactivating a driver’s account.

The Department of Justice is seeking $125 million for disabled individuals who have previously submitted complaints to Uber or the Department of Justice.

The case was filed in federal court in Northern California. Uber Technologies is based in San Francisco.

Discussion Questions

  1. In your reasoned opinion, does the fact that Uber established a hotline in 2023 for customers who were denied a ride because of a service animal improve Uber’s defense in this case? Why or why not?

    This is an opinion question, so student responses will likely vary. In your author’s opinion, if the case is actually tried rather than settled, the fact that Uber established a hotline in 2023 for customers who were denied a ride because of a service animal is evidence a trial court judge should admit for consideration by the jury. The jury would then have the authority to assign probative weight to this evidence in terms of Uber’s due care. If I were a member of the jury, I would want to know what Uber did proactively to avoid discrimination before it happened, as opposed to what the company did reactively in response to allegations of discrimination that had already occurred.

  2. Assuming there is no indication that Uber directed this discrimination, should the company be responsible for independent drivers who discriminate? Why or why not?

    This is an opinion question, so student responses will likely vary. In your author’s opinion, the key to a case like this is whether Uber directed the discrimination or tacitly allowed the discrimination to occur. One advantage Uber has is that it classifies its drivers as “gig workers” (i.e. as independent contractors rather than employees) and therefore does not have oversight authority to control its drivers. Classification of Uber driver status as either independent contractors or employees could have a great deal of bearing on the outcome of this case.

  3. As indicated in the article, the case was filed in federal court in Northern California. Why was the case filed in federal court? Why was it filed in California?

    The case was filed in federal court because it involves federal antidiscrimination law—Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases that involve a federal question (i.e., the interpretation and application of federal law). The case was filed in California at least in part because Uber has its headquarters in California. It is important to note that federal trial courts are in every state, including California.