article: On September 9, 2014, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), along with several of its members who had been discriminated against by Uber drivers because of their service animals, filed this lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California. They sued Uber under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12811 et seq.), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code §§ 51 & 52), and the California Disabled Persons Act (California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3). Represented by Disability Rights Advocates and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages for the named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs accused Uber drivers of, among other things, refusing to provide service to people with service dogs, mistreating the dogs and their owners, unfairly giving them negative feedback scores, and charging inappropriate cancellation fees. They alleged that Uber’s response to complaints about driver behavior was opaque and insufficient: Uber generally failed to notify service dog owners of whether the company had investigated complaints, and denied responsibility for drivers’ behavior. On October 22, 2014, Uber filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the NFB and the named plaintiffs all lacked standing to sue under both state and federal law. Uber also argued that even if the plaintiffs had standing, Uber wasn’t a public accommodation and thus wasn’t covered by Title III of the ADA. The United States Department of Justice issued a statement of interest on December 23, 2014. It asked the court to consider the Department of Transportation’s Title III regulations, which are granted considerable weight since the DOT is responsible for implementing the ADA. DOT regulations state that Title III applies to any “demand-responsive” service that doesn’t operate on a fixed route, and that private entities cannot “contract away” any responsibilities under the ADA. 49 C.F.R. § 37.3; 49 C.F.R. pt. 37, app. D § 37.23. The DOT regulations further require entities covered by Title III to permit service animals to accompany their owners into vehicles, and requires entities to apply eligibility criteria that don’t screen disabled people out, unless doing so would make it impossible to provide the service. 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(d); 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(1); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f). The regulations also require positive action on the part of private entities to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination (except when those modifications would fundamentally alter the service), and to ensure that their personnel are trained to properly assist disabled individuals in a respectful and courteous way, with appropriate attention to the difference among individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(2)(A); 49 C.F.R. § 37.173. On April 17, 2015, the court denied Uber’s motion to dismiss. It found that even if not all Uber drivers discriminated against blind people with service animals, discrimination by some drivers was sufficient injury for the plaintiffs to bring suit. The court also found that the NFB could sue even if some of its members had signed binding arbitration agreements with Uber, because many of its members had not. The court didn’t directly respond to the DOJ’s statement of interest, finding instead that since there was a possibility that Uber was covered by the ADA and the California statutes, the parties should have the opportunity to litigate the question. 103 F. Supp. 3d 1073. On December 6, 2016, the court approved a settlement agreement. Uber agreed to: <ul><li>Require its drivers to provide service to blind people with service animals<li>Modify its cleaning fee policy for messes caused by service animals<li>Make it easier for service animal owners to file complaints<li>Implement enhanced procedures for investigating complaints<li>Dismiss drivers receiving multiple plausible complaints<li>Submit to third-party monitoring<li>Pay the NFB $75,000 per year for three years<li>Pay a lump sum of $45,000 for distribution among the named plaintiffs<li>Pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs</ul>Uber also agreed to a class certification for purposes of the settlement, extending to all blind people with service animals who had used, attempted to use, or been deterred from attempting to use transportation through the Uber app. The settlement was to last for a default period of 3½ years. Retired Judge Margaret A. Nagle was appointed as a neutral monitor to oversee compliance. The monitor had authority to extend the agreement by 1½ years if Uber failed to substantially comply with the terms of the agreement in the second or third year. Any disputes related to the monitor would first be referred to an arbitrator, and if that failed, the court would exercise jurisdiction. Two weeks following the approval of the settlement agreement, on December 15, 2016, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2,485,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Uber appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit, which dismissed the appeal with prejudice on March 7, 2017. On November 8, 2019, the court ordered Uber to pay the plaintiffs a total of $313,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in monitoring and enforcing the agreement. On July 15, 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to modify the settlement. As of July 20, 2020, the court’s jurisdiction over the settlement agreement is ongoing.
summary: The national Federation for the Blind and blind individuals discriminated against by Uber drivers brought action against Uber Technologies, Inc. for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. The court approved a settlement agreement, under which Uber would pay damages to the plaintiffs, pay for the plaintiffs' attorneys fees, improves its complaint process for complaints by service animal owners, submit to third party monitoring, and dismiss drivers receiving multiple plausible complaints.