This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
ADA

United States of America v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Published: Sep. 16, 2022 | Result Date: Aug. 8, 2022 | Filing Date: Nov. 10, 2021 |

Case number: 3:21-CV-08735-WHA Settlement –  $2,200,000

Judge

William H. Alsup

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Cheryl Rost
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)

Matthew Faiella
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)

David W. Knight
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)

Megan E. Schuller
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)

Stephanie M. Hinds
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)

Michelle Lo
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)

David M. DeVito
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)


Defendant

Joshua A. Vittor
(WilmerHale LLP)

Debo P. Adegbile
(WilmerHale LLP)

Alan E. Schoenfeld
(Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr LLP)


Facts

In April 2016, Uber, a rideshare business, instituted a new charge -- once two minutes have passed after an Uber car's arrival, Uber automatically charged passengers "wait time" fees. Uber drivers did not have discretion to waive the fee. In 2021, the United States filed suit against Uber in regards to this fee as it affected those with disabilities.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant's policy of automatically charging the "wait time" fees violated the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), imposing an illegal boarding time fee on those with disabilities that was not imposed on others and thus penalized those with disabilities. Many passengers with disabilities need more than two minutes to get into an Uber car, for example, needing time to break down a wheelchair and put it into a car.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions. It argued that it was not actually engaged in the transportation business; it only connected drivers with passengers. Also, the ADA and its implementing regulations authorized its policy; for example, the Department of Transportation allowed for a stowage fee where taxi companies could charge persons with a disability a fee for stowing a wheelchair in the trunk as long as the charged fee was no higher than other stowage fees the company charged, such as for suitcases.

Result

Prior to the Settlement Uber established a Waiver Program, in which individuals with a disability could self-certify that they, or someone they frequently traveled with, have a disability which impacted their ability to board a vehicle, and obtain a waiver of all future wait time fees for the account. As part of the settlement, Uber agreed to maintain that program and would also provide mandatory training to its Accessibility and Disability Team and make available a help center. A settlement fund totaling over $2.2 million was also established to compensate those who had a disability but were charged the fee.


#139450

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390