North Bay Women Wins $1.1M ADA Arbitration Against Uber

MILL VALLEY, CA — A Mill Valley woman has won a blockbuster American with Disabilities Act arbitration case against ride-hailing giant Uber.

Lisa Irving, who is blind, was awarded over $1.1 million in damages and legal fees in a case that has made headlines across the globe.

Irving documented multiple instances in which Uber drivers denied her transportation because she’s accompanied by a guide dog.

Irving was late for medical and work appointments as a result of the discriminatory practice, and in one case missed a Christmas Eve church service and another had a birthday party ruined and was left in a dark and unsafe area.

An arbitrator order Uber to pay the woman $324,000 in damages and $805,313 in legal expenses according to multiple reports.

Uber argued that the business relationship it has drivers who engaged in discriminatory practices shields the company from liability. Uber’s drivers are contractors, not employees.

The arbitrator didn’t buy that argument.

“Uber is responsible for conduct that violates the ADA on independent federal grounds,” the arbitrator said in a statement announcing the ruling.

“First, under Department of Transportation ( “DOT”) guidance, the ADA imposes a non-delegable duty on the operator of a Title III-covered transportation system to make its services nondiscriminatory, even if provided by a sub-contractor such as a driver.”

Uber issued a statement disputing the arbitrators ruling.

“We are proud Uber’s technology has helped people who are blind locate and obtain rides,” the company said.

“Drivers using the Uber app are expected to serve riders with service animals and comply with accessibility and other laws, and we regularly provide education to drivers on that responsibility.”

The arbitrator disputed Uber's rosy characterization of how it accommodates disabled passengers.

The arbitrator's statement said Uber trained its own investigators “to coach drivers to find non-discriminatory reasons for ride denials...sometimes even to 'advocate' to keep drivers on the platform despite discrimination complaints.”

The case went to arbitration because Irving, along with most Uber customers, signed a user contract agreeing that disputes go before an arbitrator instead of a courtroom judge.

Although the arbitrator’s ruling doesn’t establish legal precedent, the unsealed ruling could have ripple effects in legal circles, an attorney who served as co-counsel in the case told The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Even though it does not have precedential value as an arbitration award, we hope it is shared widely and the reasoning is adopted by other arbitrators and courts,” Denver-based attorney Jana Eisinger told the news outlet.

“Because we’re able to publicize the nonconfidential aspects, it should be beneficial to others who are looking to courts and arbitrators.”