Scott Crawford v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Three people who use motorized wheelchairs alleged that Uber Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiary, Rasier, Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after declining to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicle service, called UberWAV, in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Jackson, Mississippi. The operative complaint alleged that Uber’s vehicle requirements screened out people who use motorized wheelchairs by prohibiting vans and vehicles with aftermarket seating modifications from providing Uber rides.

The court had previously granted Uber summary judgment on the same statutory subsection because the operative complaint did not include it, but the court did not reach the merits of that claim at that time. The court later allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, and the plaintiffs added the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(1). Uber then moved for partial summary judgment on that claim.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is a ruling issued before trial when the moving party shows that no genuine dispute exists about any fact that could affect the result and that the law requires judgment in its favor. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. A party opposing summary judgment must identify evidence from which a reasonable jury could rule in its favor.

Standing

Uber argued that the plaintiffs’ alleged injury depended on too many uncertain events to satisfy constitutional standing, including whether drivers would obtain wheelchair-accessible vehicles and use them for Uber. The court rejected that argument, relying in part on the Ninth Circuit’s earlier conclusion that the plaintiffs’ injuries would not exist without Uber’s actions and could not be remedied without requiring Uber to comply with the ADA.

The court also rejected Uber’s argument that the alleged policy screened out vehicles, rather than people with disabilities. Section 12184(b)(1) addresses eligibility criteria that screen out, or tend to screen out, people with disabilities from fully enjoying specified public transportation services. The court concluded that a policy preventing wheelchair-accessible vehicles from operating on Uber’s platform directly prevented people who use those vehicles from using the platform. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue the claim.

Disputed facts

Uber argued that it did not have a policy prohibiting wheelchair-accessible vehicles and that the plaintiffs had offered no evidence that Uber had rejected a person attempting to register such a vehicle. Uber’s vehicle requirements included having five factory-installed seats and prohibited vans, box trucks, similar vehicles, and vehicles with aftermarket seating modifications.

The court concluded that a plain reading of those requirements would prohibit at least some wheelchair-accessible vehicles, which are often modified minivans with seats removed. It also noted evidence from depositions and declarations by Uber employees that Uber interpreted wheelchair-accessible vehicles made with aftermarket modifications as vehicles with aftermarket seating modifications. That evidence created a genuine dispute about whether Uber’s policies screened out vehicles used by people who use motorized wheelchairs.

The plaintiffs did not dispute that they had not identified someone who tried to register a wheelchair-accessible vehicle in New Orleans or Jackson and was rejected. But they argued that such evidence was not necessary because Uber’s written policies were enough to show that the vehicles were screened out or that potential drivers were discouraged from trying to register them. The court did not resolve that factual dispute on summary judgment.

Ruling

Judge Richard Seeborg denied Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(1). The order resolved only the motion; it did not decide whether Uber ultimately violated the ADA.