Published May 2015 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/21/uber-disability-laws-don-t-apply-to-us.html
Should companies like Uber and Lyft be required to comply with ADA laws and accommodate the needs of all people? Currently, these companies are at the intersection of technology and transportation, and courts are settling whether they are software or transportation companies.
When it comes to fairness and equality, they find themselves in a grey area and many disability activists argue that regardless of politics and laws, Uber should help make transportation options available to all individuals. Should Uber be considered a taxi service with a fleet of drivers? Therefore, should it have legal or contractual duties to comply with the law?
Late last year Uber was involved in a lawsuit with the National Federation of the Blind in California in which the argument consisted of many violations of the Civil Rights Act. According to the U.S. Federal Code of Regulations for Transportation, companies like Uber cannot contract away their ADA responsibilities.
States are also struggling with these companies existing outside the realm of state regulation. A recent act introduced in various state legislatures mentions that companies such as Uber can direct disabled passengers to alternate providers with wheel-chair accessible services, if they cannot themselves accommodate for these services. This worries disability activists because it might exempt Uber from complying with ADA or by confusing drivers about their responsibilities to accommodate everyone.
The questions above open the discussion on ride-sharing and other alternative modes of transportation and level of accessibility for all individuals. To what extent should laws and regulations apply to all alternative modes of transportation now and into the future?
Great article, I am actually surprised to hear these things on such major companies. It should not be a question that Uber or Lyft need to comply with ADA laws. Any business, roadway, facility made to the public should comply to ADA laws. Uber is a great business idea and it has been growing if not taking over the entire Taxi and car sharing industry. However I do not understand how they have made it this far not showing any ADA responsibility. Even though they redirect disabled passengers to alternate providers, this does not exempt them from ADA responsibility. It should not take an activist to defend the rights of disabled citizens, however laws should extend to each and every business or facility open to the public. If Uber does not want to have each and every driver capable of accepting a disabled passenger, they should at least have a percentage of the drivers with accessibility to all individuals.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat find Bridget! This article certainly raises a few questions in regards to businesses complying with ADA requirements. While it could be a great opportunity for Uber or Lyft to expand their clientele and perhaps their business model, the issue lies within the use of private property as a means of distributing service. Can you legally require companies that do not necessarily provide driving services but rather are responsible for facilitating the driving service to comply with ADA?
ReplyDeleteWhat about AirBNB? Should each house listed on this platform be required to be ADA compliant when there is not a business technically providing the housing service but an individual?
Super interesting!
My impression of the gig/sharing economy is that companies like Uber, Airbnb, TaskRabbit, etc. only make sense (to the owners and investors) because they essentially flout all kinds of rules and regulations that are meant to protect employees and customers, in the interest of making the product cheaper. They are competitive in part because they exploit loopholes, so it's no wonder they don't want regulations to apply to them.
ReplyDeleteThose regulations were put in place to provide safety and stability to workers, to ensure that customers are not discriminated against, and to level the playing field by making potentially unscrupulous companies do the right thing. I think we can't let these companies go unregulated by pretending that it's just a person-to-person transaction.