Disability Rights and the
Sharing Economy
Kara Janssen, Associate
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP
Introduction
• New services such as Airbnb, Uber, and Lyft have
opened new doors for travelers with disabilities but also
created new problems.
• Companies innovate rapidly and constantly and can fail
to keep track of access requirements in each new idea
incorporated into the App or business.
• The “shared economy” business model poses unique
challenges because they rely on third-parties to provide
the actual services and these third-parties can enter or
exit the company at any time.
Overview
This presentation will discuss issues raised by services
including:
• What laws apply to these new services?
• How do arbitration agreements in these apps affect the
rights of people with disabilities?
• What accommodations do these apps currently provide
for people with disabilities?
• Where is there work to be done to increase accessibility?
What is the “Sharing Economy”
“Sharing” of services between private individuals based on
an online “app” that connects to real-world services
• Uber/Lyft rely on private drivers using their own car to
provide taxi services
• Airbnb allows individuals to rent their homes or a room in
their home
• TaskRabbit allows users to connect with others who will
perform errands or other tasks
Who is providing the service? Line can be blurry.
• Litigation underway re: whether drivers are “employees”
• Uber/Lyft set rates & regulate drivers in myriad ways
• Airbnb sets policies for hosts, addresses complaints, rebook users if needed, and recover money from each
listing
What Laws Apply to the
Sharing Economy?
Applicable Disability Laws
Federal Law: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
California State Law
• Unruh Civil Rights Act  All persons with disabilities in
California “are entitled to the full and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
services in all business establishments of every kind
whatsoever.” Cal. Civ Code § 51
• Disabled Persons Act  Persons with disabilities must
be given “full and equal access” to hotels, lodging, and
all “other places to which the general public is invited”
Cal. Civ Code § 54.1(a).
Laws linked to federal or state funding, such as the
Rehabilitation Act and California Government Code section
11135, will typically not apply
Title III of the ADA
“No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of any place of public accommodation by
any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a
place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182.
• Examples: places of lodging (hotel, inn); places of
recreation (park, zoo); places of exercise (gym, golf
course); service establishment (bank, barber, travel
service); sales or rental establishment (bakery, shopping
center) among others
General Provisions – ADA
All private entities, including travel services, are required to:
• Make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or
procedures unless would fundamentally alter nature of
service
• Provide auxiliary aids and services unless would
fundamentally alter nature of service or result in undue
burden
• Remove architectural barriers and communication
barriers that are structural in nature where readily
achievable
Additionally, cannot impose eligibility criteria that screen
out/tend to screen out people with disabilities unless
necessary for the service being provided.
Requirements for Places of Lodging
• Guests with disabilities must be able to reserve
accessible rooms in the same manner as others.
• Accessible features must be described in sufficient detail
to permit guest to assess whether will meet his/her
needs.
• Priority for accessible rooms given to guests with
disabilities.
• Physical barriers should be removed where “readily
achievable” i.e. rearranging furniture, clearing paths of
travel, changing floor coverings, offset hinges to widen
doorways, installing ramps
• Do not apply to owner-occupied residences maintained
solely for residential use.
Requirements for Transportation
Services
Fixed Route - Bus service, Hop on Hop off tours, shuttles
• With few exceptions, must be physically accessible
• Examples of App-Based Services: Leap, Chariot
Demand Responsive - 42 U.S.C. § 12181(3)
• Taxis, including Uber & Lyft, on-demand shuttles, charters
Not required to be physically accessible unless a “new van”
• Must provide “equivalent service” – can do so by
contracting with accessible vehicle provider
All transportation services must allow service animals, make
reasonable accommodations, and permit wheelchair users
who can use vehicle to do so.
NFB of CA v. Uber
Service Animals
• NFB of California and three NFB members bought suit in
federal district court in San Francisco alleging violations
of Title III, Unruh Act, and Disabled Persons Act
• Court denied Uber’s motion to dismiss and parties
reached settlement
o Court noted Congress clearly intended for “service
establishments” to include providers of services who
do not require persons to physically enter an actual
physical structure
• Settlement Class: All blind or visually disabled individuals
nationwide who travel with the assistance of service
animals and who have used, attempted to use, or been
deterred from attempting to use transportation arranged
through the Uber rider app.
NFB of CA v. Uber
Service Animals - Settlement
Under settlement, Uber will:
• Require existing and new drivers to expressly confirm
they understand legal obligations to transport riders with
service animals
• Implement stricter enforcement policies and remove a
driver from the platform upon a single complaint if Uber
finds driver knew or should have known animal was a
service animal but denied ride.
o If Uber receives multiple complaints driver
permanently removed regardless of intent.
• Enhance response system for complaints regarding
service animal discrimination and allow complaints to be
submitted directly through the app and website
• Track data on complaints and send aggregated data to
Class Counsel.
NFB of CA v. Uber
Service Animals - Settlement
• NFB and CA Affiliate will deploy testers over a multi-year
period to evaluate Uber’s compliance & Uber will pay
$75,000 annually to NFB to support testing program
• 3.5 year monitoring period which can be extended to 5
years if Uber not in substantial compliance
• Third Party Monitor will review and analyze data
provided by Uber and if Monitor finds evidence of
discrimination will propose further policy modifications to
improve access.
Ramos v. Uber
Physical Access
Lawsuit filed in W.D. Texas against Lyft & Uber for failure to
provide wheelchair accessible vehicles and proper training
to drivers
• In response to Uber argument that it “has no ability to
require App users to modify their personal vehicles or
control the conditions under which they operate” court
found that Uber and Lyft control:
o Whether a user can identify as having a disability
o Whether a user can request a specific type of vehicle
o How to connect drivers who choose to modify their
vehicles or have an accessible vehicle already with
users who need one
Access Living v. Uber
• Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on October 13,
2016
• Alleges that Uber offers a travel service that is unusable
for people who require wheelchair accessible vehicles.
o Based on Uber’s failure to offer “equivalent service”
which requires equivalent response times, service
areas etc.
o In Chicago, Uber offers UberTAXI to provide
wheelchair accessible vehicles, this is essentially just
a referral to traditional taxi companies that may have
wheelchair accessible vehicles
Lyft Structured Negotiation
• We are working with Disability Rights Advocates and
TRE Legal in structured negotiations with Lyft to ensure
that riders with disabilities who use service animals are
able to access transportation services offered by Lyft
drivers.
• Agreement reached in January and further
announcements will be forthcoming as soon as we can
share.
Arbitration Agreements
How These Agreements Affect the Rights of People with
Disabilities
Arbitration Agreements
• Accepting the “Terms of Service” in an app or online
typically happens virtually automatically when you create
an account.
• These terms almost always include an agreement to
arbitrate any disputes.
• This means you cannot go to court if your rights are
violated and typically that you cannot participate in or file
a class action.
• Does not apply to individuals who use the services as
the guests of account holders.
Currently Available
Accommodations & Issues
To Look Out For
What You Need to Know When Using These Apps
Airbnb
• You are allowed to bring your service animal to an Airbnb
• You cannot be denied service due to a disability
• Airbnb.com does allow you to search for “wheelchair
accessible” listings and you can also search for hosts
who know ASL
• You have the right to file a complaint if you are denied
service or if the listing does not match what you were
told about its accessibility
We are currently working with CFILC and CCB to collect
examples of experiences with Airbnb from travelers with
disabilities.
Uber/Lyft
• Service animals allowed regardless of whether driver
has a fear of dogs, is using a rental car, or is allergic.
o Public accommodation may ask an individual to
remove a service animal from the premises if the
animal is out of control and the animal’s handler does
not take effective action to control it. 28 C.F.R. §
36.302(c)
• If you use a wheelchair and can transfer into the vehicle
the driver must allow you to do so and must safely stow
your wheelchair
• You have the right to file a complaint if you experience a
problem through the app or website
Issues to Look Out For
• Accessibility of mobile apps and websites
• Individual drivers or hosts who are not complying with
company requirements including refusing service
animals
• Ability to request a wheelchair accessible vehicle
• Inaccurate information on Airbnb listings – more detail
still needed on what “wheelchair accessible” means
• Education of individuals drivers and hosts on needs of
people with disabilities and legal requirements
• Accessibility and effectiveness of Complaint Process
Contact Information
Kara Janssen
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (415) 433-6830