In a decision made public Monday, U.S. Magistrate Nathanael Cousins of San Francisco said restrictions the company inserts into contracts with its passengers — requiring them to take all disputes to arbitration and to argue their complaints individually rather than as class actions — do not prevent the National Federation of the Blind in California from proceeding with a statewide suit on behalf of its members.
The suit, filed in September, said many Uber drivers have refused to take passengers with dogs. In one incident, the suit alleged, a driver agreed by phone last May to pick up two men and take them to a home in Menlo Park, but when the driver arrived and saw a guide dog, he shouted “No dogs,” cursed at the owner, ignored his explanation and sped away.
In March 2014, the suit said, an Uber driver picked up a blind woman in Sacramento but locked her guide dog in the trunk and ignored her pleas to release the animal until they reached her destination. Uber has also charged some blind passengers cancellation fees after its drivers refused to transport them, refunding the fees only after the passengers filed written complaints, the suit said.
Federal law requires taxis and other private transportation services to carry a disabled passenger’s service animal. Uber says its policy is to accommodate passengers with disabilities, and that any driver who refuses to carry a service animal “will be deactivated from the Uber platform.” Lawyers for the blind passengers and the advocacy group say the company doesn’t appear to be enforcing those policies.
On Monday, Cousins refused to dismiss the suit, filed by the federation and three blind passengers, saying the advocacy group could proceed on behalf of its members who have not signed Uber contracts — and thus are not bound by the arbitration requirements — and who say they have been deterred from using the company because of its treatment of guide dogs.
The federation “claims to represent the interest of its membership at large,” an adequate basis for a suit under federal and state disability laws, Cousins said. Likewise, he said, one of the individual plaintiffs, a Bay Area man who said the company’s practices deterred him, “does not need to use Uber’s services and risk being turned away when he has knowledge that disabled individuals with service animals have been turned away.”
Uber also argued that it is not a “public accommodation” covered by disability laws because it only enables would-be passengers to get rides and does not provide transportation services. But Cousins said the suit adequately alleged that the company was in the “travel service” business.
The ruling will help to establish that “new technology companies like Uber are subject to the same ... civil rights laws as other companies that have more traditional business models,” said Larry Paradis, executive director of the nonprofit Disability Rights Advocates, which represents the plaintiffs.
Uber issued a statement saying it is confident that its policies comply with the law.
“The Uber app is built to expand access to transportation options for all, including users with visual impairments and other disabilities,” the company said. “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.”
©2015 the San Francisco Chronicle. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC
