Fahey v. Uber Technologies

Background

James Fahey, representing himself, sued Uber Technologies. The opinion says Fahey had previously been an Uber driver and that Uber deactivated his driver account in 2023, purportedly because he refused service to a passenger with a service animal. Fahey claimed that the passenger canceled the ride and that he did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because he was expressing concern about transporting an animal that was behaving erratically.

Fahey sought a preliminary injunction, which is temporary relief issued before a final decision in a case. He asserted two causes of action: an ADA violation and denial of equal access and due process.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without preliminary relief, a favorable balance of the equities, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The Ninth Circuit also uses a sliding-scale approach that can allow an injunction when serious questions about the merits are raised and the balance of hardships strongly favors the plaintiff.

The court found that Fahey had not shown likely irreparable harm. It noted that monetary damages usually provide an adequate remedy in employment cases, that Fahey offered no concrete evidence supporting his claims about harm to his livelihood, reputation, and economic security, and that the fact that he had been without a driver account since 2023 suggested there was no irreparable injury. The court also noted statements Fahey made at the hearing about working for Lyft and selling his house, but said those matters had not been raised in his written filings.

The court also found that Fahey had not shown a likelihood of success. It described his ADA claim as weak because the ADA protects people with disabilities and does not generally provide a claim based only on a person’s lack of disability. The court recognized that the ADA’s retaliation provision can protect a person who opposes conduct made unlawful by the ADA or participates in an ADA investigation or proceeding. But it found that Fahey had not shown that his conduct fit that protection. As alleged, he expressed concern about accommodating a passenger with a service dog—a practice the court said might be required, rather than prohibited, by the ADA. The court therefore said that his alleged conduct was not protected activity under the retaliation provision, regardless of whether he violated the ADA itself.

Regarding Fahey’s equal-access and due-process claim, the court said it was essentially based on being compelled to arbitration and on the arbitrator’s declining to reach the merits of his ADA claim. The court stated that ADA claims can be subject to arbitration, subject to the requirements governing agreement to arbitrate. It also said Fahey had not explained in his written filings why Uber should be held responsible for the arbitrator’s conduct. Fahey first suggested at the hearing that the arbitrator had an interest in ruling for Uber, but the court noted that this issue had not been raised in his papers. The court further stated that any challenge to the legality of the arbitration was a matter for state court. It said the superior court appeared to have affirmed the arbitration decision and that Fahey could still appeal.

Disposition

Judge Hixson denied Fahey’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The order disposed of Docket No. 13. The opinion does not state that the underlying case was dismissed or that the court entered a final merits judgment.