[NFBSF] Chapter member prevails in arbitration case against Uber

Fri Apr 2 03:44:21 UTC 2021

Hello, 

I hope this story encourages you to stand up against share-ride
discrimination against blind riders and their guide dogs. 

  _____  

Uber drivers refused rides to this blind woman and her guide dog. Now the
company must pay up

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sfchronicle.com_au
thor_carolyn-2Dsaid_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&
r=aQTYCJu_Td6HiSH_lP09IUCQ3DMJ6J5hVzXBnGnDupU&m=UYQ4RuWSvZ6_frEf34dwrA7hnAth
wPJNzL-3o918V8Y&s=saqtMg1qgFEkNTwfVBvOOkSgIC3McbfM1kt9dB6CjpU&e=> Carolyn
Said

April 1, 2021Updated: April 1, 2021 8 a.m.

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sfchronicle.com_bu
siness_articleComments_Uber-2Ddrivers-2Drefused-2Drides-2Dto-2Dthis-2Dblind-
2Dwoman-2D16068416.php&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiM
M&r=aQTYCJu_Td6HiSH_lP09IUCQ3DMJ6J5hVzXBnGnDupU&m=UYQ4RuWSvZ6_frEf34dwrA7hnA
thwPJNzL-3o918V8Y&s=evtgAMingJl5XblMg_xcovrlvSfsSLAISmX3r3C4LJ8&e=> Comments

Bernie, a Labrador retriever, trained for two years at Guiding Eyes for the
Blind to be a service animal. "He was clean, well behaved, very quiet and
always under my control," said his owner, Lisa Irving of Mill Valley, who is
legally blind.

Yet when Irving would summon an Uber, she said drivers frequently balked at
letting Bernie in their cars, even as she explained that the Americans with
Disabilities Act entitled her service animal to accompany her. Often the
drivers would leave her stranded, needing to find another ride. Sometimes
she ended up late to doctors' appointments or to her work as a liaison to
people with mental health challenges. She had a birthday celebration ruined
and missed a Christmas Eve church service.

Irving took legal action against Uber, resulting in an arbitrator this month
awarding her $324,000 in damages plus legal expenses of $805,313, along with
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-250Ahttps__www.sfchron
icle.com_file_805_6_8056-2DAward-2520in-2520Irving-2520v-2520Uber.pdf.pdf&d=
DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=aQTYCJu_Td6HiSH_lP09I
UCQ3DMJ6J5hVzXBnGnDupU&m=UYQ4RuWSvZ6_frEf34dwrA7hnAthwPJNzL-3o918V8Y&s=I6koc
mGZRPAnw6UcE9z4zJO9cnpiNQT1n9MkuQWVLEE&e=> a strongly worded statement that
Uber had failed in its duty to comply with the ADA.

The arbitrator rejected Uber's defense that it was not responsible for
drivers' discriminatory conduct because it considered them to be gig
workers, not employees. This stance is central to the company's business
model and it battles ferociously to maintain it.

"The arbitrator said it's irrelevant whether they are independent
contractors or employees - Uber is on the hook under the ADA," said Irving's
counsel, Cat Cabalo, a San Francisco lawyer with the firm of Peiffer Wolf
Carr Kane and Conway. "They are providing a transportation service to the
public. The ADA has very strict requirements on allowing service dogs to
travel with people they assist."

Uber said it thought the arbitrator's decision was wrong about the law,
reiterating that its drivers are not its employees or agents.

"We are proud Uber's technology has helped people who are blind locate and
obtain rides," the San Francisco ride-hailing company said in a statement.
"Drivers using the Uber app are expected to serve riders with service
animals and comply with accessibility and other laws, and we regularly
provide education to drivers on that responsibility."

Irving, like most riders and drivers, agreed to mandatory arbitration when
she signed up to use Uber. Arbitration agreements don't carry the same
weight of precedent as court decisions. But unlike many settlements, this
one is not sealed, so that it can have ramifications beyond this case.

"Even though it does have precedential value as an arbitration award, we
hope it is shared widely and the reasoning is adopted by other arbitrators
and courts," said Jana Eisinger, a Denver lawyer who was co-counsel on the
case. "Because we're able to publicize the non-confidential aspects, it
should be beneficial to others who are looking to courts and arbitrators."

Uber has faced a variety of legal actions over access for disabled people.
Berkeley's
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sfchronicle.com_bu
siness_article_Uber-2Ddoes-2Dnot-2Dhave-2Denough-2Dwheelchair-2Daccessible-2
D12714533.php&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=aQTYC
Ju_Td6HiSH_lP09IUCQ3DMJ6J5hVzXBnGnDupU&m=UYQ4RuWSvZ6_frEf34dwrA7hnAthwPJNzL-
3o918V8Y&s=zPe84WYwvdvdqicdQL0bIv3szAi0AHNXGoqgnHtPsN0&e=> Disability Rights
Advocates sued both Uber and rival
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sfchronicle.com_bu
siness_article_Lyft-2Dsued-2Dby-2Ddisabled-2Dadvocates-2Dover-2Dlack-2Dof-2D
12750101.php&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=aQTYCJ
u_Td6HiSH_lP09IUCQ3DMJ6J5hVzXBnGnDupU&m=UYQ4RuWSvZ6_frEf34dwrA7hnAthwPJNzL-3
o918V8Y&s=H8RXKivxmQxsfUyTjVDmccKTn84RWzY8H_6f2SrzRS4&e=> Lyft in 2018 over
their lack of wheelchair accessible vehicles. The cases are ongoing.

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sfchronicle.com_ba
yarea_article_Uber-2Daccused-2Din-2Dsuit-2Dof-2Drefusing-2Dcustomers-2Dwith-
2D5746412.php&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=aQTYC
Ju_Td6HiSH_lP09IUCQ3DMJ6J5hVzXBnGnDupU&m=UYQ4RuWSvZ6_frEf34dwrA7hnAthwPJNzL-
3o918V8Y&s=C4yBN0XFP7ZLZiQCJzGa3uQUWTkb0zG3Wzwn6mN1pl4&e=> The National
Federation of the Blind sued Uber in 2014 over the guide-dog issues. In a
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dralegal.org_case_nati
onal-2Dfederation-2Dof-2Dthe-2Dblind-2Dof-2Dcalifornia-2Det-2Dal-2Dv-2Duber-
2Dtechnologies-2Dinc-2Det-2Dal_-23-3A-7E-3Atext-3Dnew-2520transportation-252
0landscape.-2D-2CSettlement-2Cwho-2520travel-2520with-2520service-2520animal
s.&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=aQTYCJu_Td6HiSH_
lP09IUCQ3DMJ6J5hVzXBnGnDupU&m=UYQ4RuWSvZ6_frEf34dwrA7hnAthwPJNzL-3o918V8Y&s=
urjLiy0gxdnsF5UI9G_hG2Cq78otNBcBQCb6UvWNFzY&e=> settlement that started in
early 2017, Uber agreed to ensure that drivers knew they were required to
provide equal service to people with disabilities who travel with service
dogs.

But the problems Irving cited in her case took place in both 2016 and 2017 -
including some after the settlement was in place. (She said she also
experienced Uber issues in 2018 but they were not part of the case.)

"Despite the fact that drivers were supposed to have received training,
emails and (