[NAGDU] FW: Uber Service Animal Class Settlement Update

Fri Mar 27 22:49:54 UTC 2020

thank you for posting this. we need to be vigilant so as to protect our 
rights to travel freely with our dogs.

On 3/27/2020 2:41 PM, Sherri via NAGDU wrote:
> I am assuming that all of you have seen this message, but passing it on just
> in case.
>
>   
>
> Sherri
>
>   
>
> From: Timothy Elder [mailto:telder at trelegal.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 3:34 PM
> To: Timothy Elder <telder at trelegal.com>
> Cc: uberserviceanimalaccess at rbgg.com; info at dralegal.org; Yingling, Valerie
> <Vyingling at nfb.org>
> Subject: Uber Service Animal Class Settlement Update
>
>   
>
> Dear Uber Riders Accompanied By Service Animals and Interested Parties:
>
>   
>
> You are receiving this letter because you have previously communicated with
> us or are a member of the class or an interested party in the case of
> National Federation of the Blind v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 14-cv-04086 NC
> (N.D. Cal.). The case challenges discrimination experienced by riders with
> service animals who want to use the Uber ridesharing service. We are
> preparing to return to court to address ongoing discrimination and need your
> statement by April 17, 2020, in support of the effort.
>
> On December 6, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
> California approved a nationwide class action settlement, reflected in this
> <https://www.trelegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Settlement-Agreement-FI
> NAL-Accessible-for-Public1.pdf> Settlement Agreement. Further information is
> available on the National Federation of the Blind's
> <https://www.nfb.org/programs-services/legal-program/uber-and-lyft-survey/ub
> er-and-lyft-information> rideshare page. In compliance with the settlement
> agreement, the law firms
> <https://dralegal.org/featured/groundbreaking-settlement-end-discrimination-
> blind-uber-riders-use-guide-dogs/> Disability Rights Advocates,
> <https://rbgg.com/final-uber-settlement-approval/> Rosen Bien Galvan &
> Grunfeld, LLP, and
> <https://www.trelegal.com/posts/tre-legal-team-and-national-federation-of-th
> e-blind-propose-nation-wide-class-action-settlement-with-uber-to-end-discrim
> ination-against-passengers-with-service-animals/> TRE Legal Practice, the
> approved Class Counsel, have been monitoring progress under the settlement.
> The following is an update on those monitoring efforts and a description of
> how you can help.
>
> During compliance monitoring for the period between February 16, 2017, the
> first date for which Uber reported this data, up through December 31, 2018,
> Uber disclosed that it had received 11,295 rider complaints of denials due
> to service animals and 3,268 reports of non-denial service-animal
> discrimination, all within the United States and Washington D.C. The number
> of such denials per month fluctuated up and down, as reflected in this
> <http://www.nfbcal.org/uber-2017-2018-service-animal-denial-reports/#table>
> table and this
> <http://www.nfbcal.org/uber-2017-2018-service-animal-denial-reports/#dbm>
> audio and visual line graph.
>
> Based on the information currently available, the overall number of such
> denials did not appear to materially decrease as of December 2018, which is
> in line with what Class Counsel and the NFB have heard from some of you
> based on your individual experiences.
>
> Uber suggests that the number of complaints should be considered in the
> context of its overall increases or decreases in trip volume for general
> ridership. The percentage of all trips that resulted in a complaint to Uber
> are disclosed on this
> <http://www.nfbcal.org/uber-2017-2018-service-animal-denial-reports/#pttsd>
> chart.
>
> Class Counsel and the NFB do not believe that a comparison of total general
> trip volume to reported ride denials is a sufficiently reliable measure of
> settlement effectiveness. Trip volume percentage does not account for
> unreported denials or complaint fatigue over time. Instead, Class Counsel
> proposes that the parties consider a more objective comparison of trip
> cancellation rates for the general population of Uber riders and control
> groups of blind riders who travel with service animals and blind riders who
> do not travel with service animals. This additional data would help
> determine whether the settlement has resulted in a statistically significant
> decrease in denials for service animal users relative to the number of rides
> and cancellations for Uber riders as a whole. Uber is refusing to disclose
> this data on comparative cancellation rates.
>
> Further data exists from Uber and the National Federation of the Blind's
> national testing program for the time period from January 2019 to present.
> However, that data is still covered by confidentiality in accordance with
> the settlement terms and court order.
>
> Given the data that is currently available, Class Counsel and the NFB
> proposed that Uber agree to several substantive settlement modifications
> that were meant to materially reduce this apparently persistent
> discrimination. The
> <https://www.trelegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/MONITORS-REPORT-RE-UBER
> -COMPLIANCE-WITH-SETTLEMENT-AGREEMENT-DURING-YEAR-ONE.pdf> Report of the
> Third Party Monitor for the first year of the settlement highlights some of
> the particular issues that have been discussed during monitoring.
>
> Uber has rejected the following commitments that Class Counsel and NFB have
> asked Uber to make through the settlement monitoring and alternative dispute
> resolution procedures:
>
> *         Adopt and disclose policies and training materials meant to
> improve consistency of terminations for drivers who knowingly deny riders
> with service animals (including policies on contacting witnesses of
> discrimination)
>
> *         Translate service animal related driver education materials into
> non-English languages to ensure that drivers with limited English
> proficiency are made aware of their responsibility to transport riders with
> service animals
>
> *         Develop additional incentive programs that encourage drivers to
> transport riders with service animals
>
> *         Provide greater detail about investigations and reasons for
> decisions on a limited set of complaints as requested by Class Counsel
>
>   
>
> The parties have been negotiating various compliance concerns and, in some
> cases, Uber has corrected non-compliance with existing obligations and fixed
> discriminatory policies with respect to the shared rides available under the
> Pool service. But more is clearly required to make a meaningful reduction in
> the magnitude of discrimination, such as the reasonable requests above that
> Uber has thus far rejected. Class Counsel, the NFB and the Class
> Representatives have worked within the confines of the settlement process to
> collaborate on solutions. We now have no further recourse but to go back to
> court to seek additional relief.
>
> You can help in two important ways. First, continue to report every incident
> of discrimination to Uber to ensure that all discrimination is considered as
> we measure progress; letting denials go unreported misrepresents the scope
> of the problem in the currently available data sets. Second, respond to this
> letter and offer to provide Class Counsel with your signed statement by
> April 17, 2020, if any of the following apply to you:
>
> *         A persistently substantial percentage of your rides result in
> overt discrimination by drivers when you notify them of the presence of your
> service animal
>
> *         A significant number of your ride denials occur in sequence or
> across a brief period of time when drivers are made aware of the presence of
> your service animal
>
> *         Uber often responds by only warning Drivers after you presented
> Uber staff with compelling evidence of the driver's knowing denial because
> of your service animal
>
> *         Uber often lets drivers off with a warning without interviewing
> one or more witnesses whose contact information was provided to Uber staff
> in support of a knowing denial
>
> *         Drivers seemed unaware of their legal obligations due to language
> barriers
>
> *         You find it difficult to easily obtain information about a driver
> who cancels before starting a trip
>
> *         You have changed your frequency of submitting service
> animal-related complaints to Uber or experience other frustration with the
> amount of effort needed to submit complaints
>
>   
>
> Thank you for your continued efforts to hold Uber accountable for the
> discrimination you face because of your service animals. Class Counsel, the
> NFB and the individual Class Representatives understand your frustration as
> we all work to solve this complex problem. We are committed to take all
> steps needed to advocate for your rights during the remainder of the
> settlement term, which expires in July 2020, and then beyond toward a
> broader set of post-settlement protections for your legal right to travel
> with a service animal. Contact Class Counsel to share your statement as
> follows:
>
> *         Timothy Elder, TRE Legal Practice,
> <mailto:rideshare at trelegal.com> rideshare at trelegal.com or (415) 873-9199
>
> *         Michael Nunez, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLP,
> <mailto:uberserviceanimalaccess at rbgg.com> uberserviceanimalaccess at rbgg.com
> or (415) 433-6830
>
> *         Melissa Riess, Disability Rights Advocates,
> <mailto:mriess at dralegal.org> info at dralegal.org or (510) 665-8644
>
> *         Valerie Yingling, National Federation of the Blind,
> <mailto:vyingling at nfb.org> vyingling at nfb.org or (410) 659-9314
>
>   
>
> Additional Resources:
>
> This linked
> <https://www.trelegal.com/posts/guidelines-for-effective-uber-and-lyft-servi
> ce-animal-complaints/> article gives guidance on how to submit effective and
> accurate complaints to Uber.
>
> Uber's
> <https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?name=general-terms-of-use&country=u
> nited-states&lang=en> terms may be of interest for individuals considering
> arbitration of state law damages claims, including the exclusion of
> procedures in small claims court from the arbitration requirement.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Timothy Elder
> Attorney
> TRE Legal Practice
> 1155 Market Street, Tenth Floor
> San Francisco, CA 94103
> Phone: (415) 873-9199
> Fax: (415) 952-9898
>
>   
> E-mail:  <mailto:telder at trelegal.com> telder at trelegal.com
>   <http://www.trelegal.com/> www.trelegal.com
>
> Twitter:  <https://twitter.com/TRELegal> @trelegal
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Confidentiality Notice
>
> This e-mail may contain confidential information that may also be legally
> privileged and that is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named
> above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent of the
> recipient, please be advised that any dissemination or copying of this
> e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance on the information contained
> herein, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> please notify me immediately by use of the Reply button, and then delete the
> e-mail from your system. Thank you!
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> NAGDU mailing list
> NAGDU at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NAGDU:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/sheila.leigland%40gmail.com