[Ohio-Talk] Victory in Small Claims: Holding Uber Accountable for Service Animal Discrimination

[Steve Cook]

Thanks for sharing Richard! I can’t count how many times this has happened
to me!



Steve Cook

You are invited to join us on the 1st and 2nd Friday of each month at 8:00
PM Eastern for audio described movies using the below Zoom platform!

 <https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8032543777?pwd=QTVQd2RzN3l6QnNmZ0FmSnp6NG8vQT09>
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8032543777?pwd=QTVQd2RzN3l6QnNmZ0FmSnp6NG8vQT09

Meeting ID: 803 254 3777

Passcode: 124578



From: Ohio-Talk <ohio-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Richard Payne
via Ohio-Talk
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 2:45 PM
To: 'NFB of Ohio Announcement List' <ohio-talk at nfbnet.org>; 'Ohio
Association of Guide Dog Users List' <oagdu at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Richard Payne <rchpay7 at gmail.com>
Subject: [Ohio-Talk] Victory in Small Claims: Holding Uber Accountable for
Service Animal Discrimination



        Hello I could not remember if this has been posted.

Victory in Small Claims: Holding Uber Accountable for Service Animal
Discrimination

Written by

 <https://accessaces.com/author/lucy-greco/> lucy greco

in

 <https://accessaces.com/category/accessibility/> Accessibility

For those of us who are blind, the promise of rideshare technology was
supposed to be a gateway to freedom and autonomy. Instead, for many in our
community who use service animals, ridesharing has become a persistent
source of anxiety, humiliation, and a constant battle to defend our basic
civil rights. When we do try to assert our legal rights, it often depends on
whether attorneys are willing to take on an individual case, which can take
years to resolve in private arbitration. I recently decided that enough was
enough and took my fight against Uber Technologies, Inc., to small claims
court. I want to share this journey as a roadmap for others who are tired of
being left on the curb and feeling there isn’t much they can do about it.

I am thrilled to share that on August 3, 2026, I represented myself in a
small claims hearing in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.
A week later, the court ruled in my favor, proving that accessibility is not
an optional feature, but that it is my right and the law.

The Incidents: A Pattern of Exclusion

My case was built on three separate occasions where Uber drivers refused to
transport me because I travel with a guide dog. These weren’t just
misunderstandings; they were blatant denials of service:

*       March 28, 2025 (Berkeley): A driver repeatedly moved the car away as
I approached. After I explained my dog was a service animal, he simply
stated, “No dogs,” and drove off.

*       June 17, 2025 (Mountain View): A driver demanded I order “an Uber
Pet” and told me to “go away.” He then refused to cancel the ride for 20
minutes, effectively trapping me on the curb and preventing me from hailing
another ride.

*       December 1, 2025 (Berkeley): Despite a bystander explaining the law,
the driver refused service and later filed a retaliatory complaint against
me.

I am sure many of you who use service animals are nodding your heads. We all
have these stories. I have heard accounts of people being abandoned in
dangerous neighborhoods or even ejected in the middle of a freeway. For a
long time, the advocacy community felt we were hitting a brick wall with
these cases. Time and time again, more and more of my friends were being
left behind by Uber, and it just kept getting worse. Even when we negotiated
settlements in the past, nothing was fixed and more and more blind people
and their dogs were refused service. However, when I heard of someone that
had successfully brought Uber to small claims court, I decided to take
action.

What I did

I participated in a self-help pilot program sponsored by the
<https://nfb.org/programs-services/legal-program/support-and-resources/small
-claims-guide> National Federation of the Blind to create template demand
letters, helpful supporting legal documents, and multi-step instructions for
a successful case, which are now available for anyone to use. Check out this



<https://nfb.org/programs-services/legal-program/support-and-resources/small
-claims-guide> Small Claims Guide for Knowing and Enforcing Your Rights with
Uber and Lyft

Throughout this process, I was grateful for the knowledge of
<https://trelegal.com/> TRE Legal Practice, a disability rights law firm
that assisted the pilot program participants to prepare our materials for
the case. They helped draft the template so that the next person, or all
people that use them in the future, do not need to use a lawyer at all. This
is very important because when using the small claims court process in
California, lawyers are not permitted to represent you in the courtroom. In
some states they are, but this template we worked on will be easy enough to
use that the expense of a lawyer is not necessary. I want to thank
<https://trelegal.com/> TRE Legal for doing this hard work even though their
help here means that in the future they are not needed.

Ultimately, the court’s ruling was based on the undeniable facts of the
case: I ordered a ride and was denied because of my service dog. It was a
blatant denial of my basic rights that was easy to prove with my verbal
testimony and some emails showing that I actually took these trips and that
I had asked Uber to do something about it. I filed my case in April and
received my judgment in August. No legal process I’ve heard of results in
that kind of quick result. And I can still file more cases if the companies
continue to deny me.

Why This Win Matters for Advocacy

This judgment is significant because of how easy it was to achieve. Without
depending on an attorney, I can actually do something to remedy the harm
that rideshare is causing me and others. After seeing how efficient this
process was to hold the company accountable, I won’t hesitate to use this
process again to enforce my rights to equal service.

If all of us who are denied a ride took advantage of this process, we could
put real pressure on these companies to finally train their drivers and
enforce a strict non-rejection policy.

My judge quickly rejected Uber’s attempts to raise unsupported legal
arguments, because I had used the legal templates now available on NFB’s
Small Claims website.

Key Takeaways From the Court’s Order

1.      Non-Delegable Duty: Uber argued they weren’t responsible because
drivers are “independent contractors.” The court rejected this, stating
the duty not to discriminate is non-delegable.

2.      Failure to Prevent: The court noted that three separate incidents
with three different drivers strongly indicates that Uber is not doing
nearly enough to prevent or police discrimination.

3.      Opaque Investigations: The court found Uber’s internal
investigation process “incredibly opaque and difficult to access,” noting
that riders often have no way to contact Uber by phone and that
investigations were frequently “cursory.”

My Final Thoughts: Our Rights are Not Optional

The stress of standing on a sidewalk debating your right to basic services
is exhausting. But, as this case proves, our civil rights are not a
request-they are a requirement. If you have faced similar discrimination, I
encourage you to document every detail and consider using this process. We
must hold these companies accountable to ensure that mainstream technology
and technology-based services are accessible to everyone.

Justice was served here. I hope this sends a clear message that
discrimination has no place in our society or our transportation systems,
and most of all, in our technology solutions we depend on.

In the meantime, I plan to keep holding Uber accountable for any denials as
they occur. Anyone who faces these denials should do the same; we must keep
the pressure on so they eventually change their practices. Please keep an
eye on this space, as I will continue to share my progress and discuss
potential alternatives for the future.

←
<https://accessaces.com/beyond-furious-apples-pathetic-excuses-for-accessibi
lity-failures/> BEYOND FURIOUS: APPLE’S PATHETIC EXCUSES FOR ACCESSIBILITY
FAILURES!

Comments

2 responses to “Victory in Small Claims: Holding Uber Accountable for
Service Animal Discrimination”

1.
<https://accessaces.com/victory-in-small-claims-holding-uber-accountable-for
-service-animal-discrimination/> September 1, 2026

Jessica Reed

You are a rockstar!

2.
<https://accessaces.com/victory-in-small-claims-holding-uber-accountable-for
-service-animal-discrimination/> August 31, 2026

 <https://onsman.com/weekly-reading-list-31-august-2026/> Weekly Reading
List 31 August 2026 - Ricky Onsman

[…] Victory in Small Claims: Holding Uber Accountable for Service Animal
Discrimination Lucy Greco: the court ruled in my favor, proving that
accessibility is not an optional feature, but that it is my right and the
law. […]



Richard Payne, President National Federation of the Blind of Ohio

937/829/3368

 <mailto:Rchpay7 at gmail.com> Rchpay7 at gmail.com

 <http://www.nfbohio.org/> www.nfbohio.org

The National Federation of the Blind advances the lives of its members and
all blind people in the United States. We know that blindness is not the
characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the
expectations of blind people, because low expectations create obstacles
between blind people and our dreams. Our collective power, determination,
and diversity achieve the aspirations of all blind people.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20260901/a0e6adcb/attachment.htm>