Over the last decade, rideshares have become ubiquitous. “Calling a Lyft/Uber” has replaced “calling a cab” in standard parlance when catching a ride. Unfortunately, the rideshare companies have been accused of doing far too little to protect drivers and passengers from the dangers associated with picking up strangers at all... Read More »
DOJ Sues Uber Over Wait-Time Fees for Disabled Riders
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against rideshare company, Uber. The complaint alleges that Uber violated the rights of disabled riders after charging them for taking too long to enter their ride.
Uber’s wait time policy requires that riders have two minutes to get into the vehicle once they hit the confirm button on their app. After the two minutes are up, the app begins charging users wait time fees until the rider has physically entered the vehicle. The policy was implemented in a handful of cities in April 2016. After the company considered the policy a success, it expanded nationwide.
The Justice department details that Uber’s wait time policy is a violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the act, it is illegal for private transportation companies to discriminate against individuals with disabilities.
According to the DOJ, “Uber violates the ADA by failing to reasonably modify its wait time fee policy for passengers who, because of disability, need more than two minutes to get in an Uber car.” The DOJ explains that individuals who use support equipment like a wheelchair or walker may need more than two minutes to properly store their equipment into the car before they get in. They also explain that a blind individual may also need more than two minutes to safely get to the car.
Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division explains, “People with disabilities deserve equal access to all areas of community life, including the private transportation services provided by companies like Uber.” Clarke adds, “This lawsuit seeks to bring Uber into compliance with the mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act while sending a powerful message that Uber cannot penalize passengers with disabilities simply because they need more time to get into a car. Uber and other companies that provide transportation services must ensure equal access for all people, including those with disabilities.”
Uber has responded to the complaint explaining, “Wait time fees are charged to all riders to compensate drivers after two minutes of waiting, but were never intended for riders who are ready at their designated pickup location but need more time to get into the car.” Their statement adds, "We recognize that many riders with disabilities depend on Uber for their transportation needs, which is why we had been in active discussions with the DOJ about how to address any concerns or confusion before this surprising and disappointing lawsuit."
Uber also adds that last week the company implemented a change that would waive wait fees for riders who can certify that they have a disability.
In addition to having Uber change its wait fee policy, the DOJ is seeking monetary damages for those who were impacted by the policy as well as civil damages.
Related Articles
Ride-sharing company Uber is at the center of a large-scale lawsuit in which at least 554 female passengers accuse the brand of failing to prevent violence against riders on its platform. At least 150 other cases are being investigated for possible inclusion in this lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed in... Read More »
If a fast-food restaurant closes its indoor seating at night because of safety concerns and only allows customers to buy their burgers at the drive-thru, is the restaurant violating the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)? The Ninth Circuit said no when it dismissed a case by two blind patrons who... Read More »
On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit against J. Randolph Parry Architects and eight owners of multifamily properties that were designed by the architectural firm. The lawsuit alleges that both the architectural firm and the property owners violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). And in... Read More »