A blind Broward County man is suing Uber in federal court, alleging that the ride-share company violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) after its drivers repeatedly refused to transport him because he travels with a service dog.
Ansel Davis filed the lawsuit Aug. 3 in the Southern District of Florida, emphasizing that he was dependent on third-party services, such as Uber, to travel around the county because of his disability.
“In this case, Uber has repeatedly, consistently and incessantly failed and/or refused to transport (the) plaintiff, only because he is accompanied by a guide dog,” the complaint states. “The conduct by Uber violates the ADA.”
Uber has itself acknowledged to Davis that the way he was treated by drivers was unlawful, according to the complaint, and pledged to remedy the situation. But such promises have been broken, the lawsuit says.
“Those promises, however, have been hollow, meaningless boilerplate, and (the) defendant’s drivers continue to refuse to transport (the) plaintiff because of his guide dog,” the complaint states.
The lawsuit makes clear that the intent of the litigation is to secure not only compensatory damages but punitive damages as well.
“Defendant is clearly undeterred and unmoved by litigation aimed at rectifying this misconduct, and at this point, it is clear that only a punitive damages award might possibly cause Uber to take effective action to cure this persisting misconduct,” the lawsuit says.
An Uber spokesperson told the Florida Record that although it cannot comment on pending litigation, the company will continue to use technology that assures accessibility for all its customers.
“We want every experience on the Uber platform to feel safe, respectful and positive, especially for riders with disabilities,” the spokesperson said in an email. “All drivers who use the app agree to accommodate riders with service animals, and we have a dedicated support team that handles all service animal-related reports to ensure they are investigated.”
Uber’s policy on service animals, which was updated in November 2020, notes that state and federal law generally precludes ride-share companies from denying service to customers because they have guide dogs – or to discriminate against such disabled people in other ways.
“For this reason, and because it’s the right thing to do, Uber’s policy also prohibits drivers who use the Uber Driver App from denying service to a rider because of the rider’s service animal,” the policy says. “There are no exceptions to this policy due to allergies, religious objections or a generalized fear of animals.”
In addition to being denied rides, Davis has also been charged for rides he was not given because of the driver’s refusal to transport the service dog, according to the lawsuit. He was refused service as a result of having a guide dog more than a dozen times, the complaint says.