Disability Rights in the Age Of Uber: Applying the Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990 To Transportation Network Companies
Rachel Reed
Georgia State University College of Law, rachelpastor@gmail.com
[Page 517]
Uber began with a simple idea: "tap a button, get a ride."1 The company's founders put that idea into practice when they first launched UberCab service in San Francisco in the summer of 2010.2 Since then, Uber has experienced incredible growth.3 Within five years of its launch, Uber grew from just a small network of San Francisco employees and drivers4 to operating in 311 cities and employing more than 3,000 people worldwide.5 Accordingly, ride-hailing services like Uber and its primary competitor Lyft, commonly referred to as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs),6 have become an increasingly common part of life for
[Page 518]
people that live in cities where they operate.7 TNCs' popularity is due in part to their unique use of mobile applications and GPS data to connect people seeking rides with nearby drivers who then use their personal vehicles to transport riders to their desired destinations.8
For most TNC customers, securing transportation through a TNC's mobile application provides a more convenient and cost-effective alternative to a traditional taxi service.9 However, for some potential riders, the service falls short in a very significant way.10 More than once, Uber drivers refused a ride to Kristen Parisi, a Boston woman who requires a wheelchair to get around.11 On the first instance, Parisi's driver claimed her wheelchair would not fit in the car, even
[Page 519]
though Parisi explained to the driver that the wheelchair fit inside the trunk of her own compact car.12 Parisi heard a similar excuse the second time, but unwilling to accept the driver's claims, loaded both herself and her wheelchair into the backseat of her ride without any assistance from the driver.13 During that ride, Parisi's driver added insult to injury by telling her she "must not be a Christian" and should "develop thicker skin."14 Regrettably, Parisi's story is not unique.15
Within the past year, individual plaintiffs and disability rights organizations have initiated a number of lawsuits against Uber, and similar companies like Lyft, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title III).16 In each of these cases, the plaintiffs' success turns on affirmatively answering one significant threshold question: Whether Uber, or a similar entity, falls within the scope of Title III.17 Traditional taxi companies fall squarely within the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990's (ADA) coverage under 42 U.S.C. § 12184 (§ 12184), which governs private companies that provide transportation services. 18 Given the similarities between the functions of TNCs and taxi companies,
[Page 520]
holding TNCs to the same standard seems like an easy decision.19 However, the TNCs currently facing Title III suits do not agree with that premise.20
Although Uber and Lyft, the two primary targets of Title III litigation, both have nondiscrimination policies in place,21 they claim that as "technology companies" rather than "transportation companies," their operations fall outside the scope of Title III regulations.22 To make this argument, Uber and Lyft contend that their primary function is not providing rides, but instead providing a platform through which drivers and riders can connect.23 Federal courts have not yet resolved this issue or provided clear guidance on what obligations TNCs may have under the ADA.24 This Note seeks to provide that guidance and explore whether the laws adequately ensure that people with disabilities receive the benefits of this new brand of transportation.
Part I of this Note outlines the Title III provisions most applicable to TNCs, and provides a synopsis of discrimination suits brought against these companies under Title III.25 Part II assesses the viability of riders with disabilities' Title III claims by analyzing whether TNCs qualify as private providers of public transportation or public
[Page 521]
accommodations under the ADA and predicts what obligations TNCs would have under either definition.26 Finally, Part III contends that TNCs should be treated as transportation providers with obligations similar to those imposed on taxi services.27
A. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Congress enacted the ADA in July of 1990 28 to prohibit discrimination based on disability and make strides towards ensuring that people with disabilities share equally in the benefits of American life. 29 To achieve this broader aim, the legislation focused specifically on resolving issues of discrimination and accessibility in employment,30 places of public accommodation,31 transportation
[Page 522]
services,32 and communication services.33 Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination by public accommodation and private service providers. 34 Many of ADA's most visible effects, accommodations such as a wheelchair ramps in theaters or grab bars in store restrooms, are direct results of Title III and its corresponding regulations.35
1. Provisions Governing Transportation Providers
Within Title III, § 12184 prohibits private entities "primarily engaged in the business of transporting people" from discriminating against people with disabilities in the use and enjoyment of "specified public transportation" services.36 Discrimination under this section includes: (1) failing to make a reasonable modification required for extending service to an individual with a disability when the modification would not fundamentally alter the nature of provider's the service;37 (2) excluding individuals from using a service due to a lack of auxiliary aids that the service provider could offer without undue burden;38 and (3) leaving in place readily removable physical or communication barriers that limit an individual with disabilities' ability to use the provider's transportation service.39
[Page 523]
In addition to complying with § 12184's statutory prohibitions, transportation providers must also adhere to the Department of Transportation's corresponding regulations, 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.1 to .215.40 Most pertinent to the purposes of this Note, 49 C.F.R. § 37.29 provides guidance to private entities providing taxi services.41 This regulation not only prohibits taxi services from refusing to serve people with disabilities that can use a taxi, but also prohibits taxi services from refusing to assist passengers with mobility devices or charging people with disabilities higher fares.42 The regulation does not require taxi services to acquire or maintain any number of accessible vehicles within their fleets.43 In short, these regulations mean that taxi companies and similar transportation services fulfill their ADA obligations as long as they do not refuse service to individuals with disabilities who are capable of riding in the vehicle and require limited to no assistance from the driver.44
[Page 524]
2. Provisions Governing Public Accommodations
In addition to imposing nondiscrimination obligations on private entities that provide transportation services, Title III also prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, a broad category including restaurants, doctors' offices, and a wide variety of other places that provide goods and services to the public.45 Although the ADA does not specifically define "public accommodations" beyond being private entities that affect commerce, the Act does limit the application of the term to an exhaustive list of twelve specific types of entities.46 Some of these categories include service establishments such as laundromats or doctors' offices, transportation terminals, retail establishments, and places of lodging such as hotels.47
42 U.S.C. § 12182 (§ 12182) articulates the ADA's ban on discrimination in the use of public accommodations.48 The general rule provides that, "[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."49 The statute prohibits operators of public accommodations from denying individuals goods or services based on their disability or by offering them goods and services that are either unequal to or separate from the goods and services available to others, defining such actions as discrimination.50
[Page 525]
Section 12182 makes clear that discrimination also includes an operator's failure to affirmatively take reasonable steps to ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to its goods or services.51 Additionally, § 12182 contains a specific provision addressing public accommodations that operate demand responsive transportation systems. 52 This provision requires such systems to provide an equivalent level of service to people with disabilities as it provides for others.53
B. Discrimination Claims Brought Against Transportation Network Companies
Within the past two years, individual plaintiffs and disability rights organizations filed numerous actions against TNCs, alleging that the companies or their drivers discriminated against individuals with disabilities in violation of Title III of the ADA.54 Although no federal courts have issued opinions definitively holding that TNCs have responsibilities under a specific provision of Title III, preliminary
[Page 526]
rulings in the most recent cases suggest that courts are at least willing to consider the issue.55 In their complaints against TNCs, plaintiffs present courts with two narrow questions to answer: (1) whether TNCs meet the statutory definition of...
