`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`KRISTEN CLARKE, Assistant Attorney General
`REBECCA B. BOND, Chief
`KATHLEEN P. WOLFE, Special Litigation Counsel
`KEVIN J. KIJEWSKI, Deputy Chief
`CHERYL ROST, Trial Attorney (NJBN 020982011)
`MATTHEW FAIELLA, Trial Attorney (NYRN 4437711)
`SARAH GOLABEK-GOLDMAN, Trial Attorney (DCRN 1047833)
`U.S. Department of Justice
`950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW- 4CON
`Washington, DC 20530
`Telephone: (202) 616-5311
`Fax: (202) 307-1197
`cheryl.rost@usdoj.gov
`matthew.faiella@usdoj.gov
`sarah.golabek-goldman@usdoj.gov
`
`STEPHANIE M. HINDS (CABN 154284)
`Acting United States Attorney
`MICHELLE LO (NYRN 4325163)
`Chief, Civil Division
`DAVID M. DEVITO (CABN 243695)
`Assistant United States Attorney
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`San Francisco, California 94102-3495
`Telephone: (415) 436-7332
`Fax: (415) 436-6748
`david.devito@usdoj.gov
`Attorneys for United States of America
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff United States of America brings this action to enforce Title III of the Americans with
`
`Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, as amended, and its implementing regulation, 49
`C.F.R. Part 37, against Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Uber”). The ADA
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`CASE NO. 21-8735
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`1
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`prohibits discrimination based on disability by a private entity that is primarily engaged in the business
`of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a). The United States
`alleges as follows:
`
`BACKGROUND
`1.
`Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with
`disabilities in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and its implementing regulation, 49 C.F.R.
`Part 37, through its policies and practices of imposing “wait time” fees on passengers with disabilities
`who, because of disability, require more time than that allotted by Uber to board the vehicle.
`2.
`In violation of the ADA, Uber has failed to (1) ensure adequate vehicle boarding time for
`passengers with disabilities; (2) ensure equitable fares for passengers with disabilities; and (3) make
`reasonable modifications to its policies and practices of imposing wait time fees as applied to passengers
`who, because of disability, require more time to board the vehicle. See 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.167(i), 37.29(c),
`and 37.5(d), (f); 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a), (b)(2)(A); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.302 (incorporated by reference
`in 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f)).
`3.
`The Attorney General has commenced this action based on a determination that Uber has
`engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and a determination that a person or group of persons
`has been discriminated against, and that such discrimination raises an issue of general public
`importance. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(B). The United States seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
`monetary damages, including compensatory and emotional distress damages, and a civil penalty against
`Uber.
`
`4.
`Congress enacted the ADA in 1990 “to provide a clear and comprehensive national
`mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C.
`§ 12101(b)(1). In enacting the ADA, Congress found that discrimination against individuals with
`disabilities persists in transportation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3).
`5.
`The ADA’s prohibition against discrimination in specified public transportation services
`provided by private entities, such as Uber, is essential to furthering the ADA’s purpose “to invoke the
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`sweep of congressional authority . . . to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by
`people with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4).
`
`PARTIES
`6.
`Plaintiff is the United States of America.
`7.
`Defendant Uber is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1515 3rd
`Street, San Francisco, California 94158. In this complaint, “Uber” refers to Uber Technologies, Inc. and
`any of its subsidiary companies or operationally distinct segments that are responsible for Uber’s
`provision of transportation services. See 49 C.F.R. § 37.37(f) (nondiscrimination requirements apply to
`any subsidiary company or operationally distinct segment of a parent company that is primarily engaged
`in the provision of transportation services).
`8.
`Uber is a for-profit company that provides transportation services to individuals
`throughout the United States. Passengers request transportation through Uber’s mobile software
`application, and Uber arranges rides between passengers and a fleet of drivers.
`9.
`While Uber does not own all the vehicles in this fleet, Uber maintains control over
`vehicle specifications, driver qualifications, the amount each passenger must pay, and the general ride
`experience for each trip.
`10.
`As Uber and other similar providers have gained popularity over traditional taxi services
`as the primary option for on-demand transportation, Uber plays an important role in ensuring
`independence for countless people with disabilities who choose to – or simply must – rely on its services
`to travel.
`11.
`Uber provides “specified public transportation services,” which the ADA defines as
`“transportation by . . . any [] conveyance (other than by aircraft) that provides the general public with
`general or special service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing basis.” 42 U.S.C.
`§ 12181(10); see also 49 C.F.R. § 37.3.
`12.
`Uber is a private entity primarily engaged in the business of transporting people, and its
`operations affect commerce. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(1), (6), 12184(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 37.3.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`13.
`Uber is a private entity that provides taxi and other transportation services that involve
`calling for a vehicle and a driver to take an individual to a place or places. See 49 C.F.R. § 37.29; see
`also 49 pt. 37, app. D § 37.29.
`14.
`Uber provided 2.3 billion trips in the United States from 2017-2018, including more than
`3.1 million individual trips per day.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`15.
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(B),
`and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, because it involves claims arising under federal law and is commenced
`by the United States.
`16.
`The Court may grant declaratory relief and other necessary or proper relief pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and may grant equitable relief, monetary damages, and a civil penalty
`pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(2).
`17.
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Uber operates,
`resides and has its principal place of business in this district, and a substantial part of the events or
`omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
`18.
`Divisional Assignment. Assignment to the San Francisco or Oakland Division is proper
`under Civil L.R. 3-2(c) because Uber is headquartered in San Francisco and a substantial part of the
`events or omissions that give rise to the claims occurred therein.
`
`Uber’s Policies and Practices of Imposing Wait Time Fees on Passengers Who, Because of
`Disability, Require More Time to Board the Uber Vehicle
`
`FACTS
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`In April 2016, Uber launched a new policy of charging passengers wait time fees in
`limited locations throughout the United States.
`20.
`Under this policy, Uber charges wait time fees starting two minutes after the Uber vehicle
`arrives at the pickup location, and the fees are charged until the vehicle begins its trip.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Uber later expanded its policy to apply to all cities in the United States where Uber
`
`21.
`operates.
`22.
`Uber has publicly stated that the amount of the wait time fee charged depends on the
`passenger’s city and the category of Uber service the passenger is taking.
`23. The two-minute window before which wait time fees are charged begins when Uber
`determines via the global positioning system, or GPS, that the driver has arrived at the pickup location.
`24.
`Uber drivers do not have discretion related to wait time fees to indicate when they have
`arrived at the pick-up location.
`25.
`Uber drivers do not have discretion to waive a wait time fee.
`26. Many passengers with disabilities require more than two minutes to board or load into a
`vehicle for various reasons, including because they may use mobility aids and devices such as
`wheelchairs and walkers that need to be broken down and stored in the vehicle or because they simply
`need additional time to board the vehicle.
`27.
`Passengers with disabilities who take longer than two minutes to board or load into the
`vehicle are charged a wait time fee regardless of the reason that it takes them longer than two minutes to
`begin the trip.
`28.
`Upon request, Uber has issued wait time fee refunds to some passengers with disabilities.
`29.
`Uber, however, has also denied wait time fee refunds to some passengers with disabilities
`even after being informed that the fees were charged because of their disabilities.
`
`Uber Discriminates Against Passengers and Potential Passengers Who, Because of Disability, Are
`Charged or Are Aware That They Would Be Charged Wait Time Fees
`
`30.
`Uber’s policies and practices of charging wait time fees based on disability have
`impacted many passengers and potential passengers with disabilities throughout the country, including:
`Passenger A
`Passenger A is a 52-year-old woman who lives in Miami, Florida.
`In 2012, Passenger A sustained spinal cord injuries that resulted in quadriplegia.
`
`31.
`32.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`33.
`Because she does not walk, Passenger A uses a manual wheelchair, which she propels by
`pushing on round bars that surround the wheel. Her manual wheelchair also has a handle on the back
`that can be pushed by another person.
`34.
`A person can fold up Passenger A’s manual wheelchair by gripping the front and the
`back of the seat with each hand and pulling up so that the wheelchair collapses like an accordion. When
`collapsed, her wheelchair can be stored in the trunk of a standard vehicle.
`35.
`In May 2020, Passenger A relocated to Louisville, Kentucky to participate in a yearlong
`clinical study and rehabilitation program for spinal cord injuries at the University of Louisville. She
`moved to an apartment in downtown Louisville, which is approximately five city blocks away from the
`rehabilitation center.
`36.
`During her year in Louisville, Passenger A received full-time nursing assistance from
`nurses who helped her with personal care, as well as transferring to and from her wheelchair and storing
`her wheelchair in the trunk of a vehicle when she took car trips.
`37.
`Passenger A relied on Uber for transportation from her apartment to the rehabilitation
`facility and back home again following her appointment.
`38.
`Passenger A took an Uber vehicle to and from her rehabilitation appointments
`approximately ten times each week.
`39.
`Because her rehabilitation appointment took place at the same time every day, Passenger
`A developed a consistent routine for requesting an Uber vehicle. Fifteen minutes before her
`appointment time when she was ready to leave, she went to the lobby of her apartment building or
`waited in front of the building and requested an Uber vehicle from her phone.
`40. When the Uber vehicle arrived, Passenger A promptly began the process of boarding the
`vehicle. Her nursing assistant used a sliding board to help her transfer and slide into the backseat of the
`vehicle. The assistant then assisted with moving Passenger A’s legs into the vehicle and buckling the
`safety belt over her. The assistant next collapsed Passenger A’s wheelchair and stored it in the trunk of
`the Uber vehicle. On average, it took Passenger A at least five minutes from start to finish to board an
`Uber vehicle.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`41.
`In August 2020, Passenger A first noticed that Uber was consistently charging her wait
`time fees for her daily rides.
`42.
`Passenger A then examined all of her past Uber receipts and realized she had been
`charged a wait time fee for every ride she had taken with Uber since she relocated to Louisville in May
`2020.
`
`43.
`Because she had limited options for getting to her daily rehabilitation appointments,
`Passenger A continued to take Uber every day and continued to be charged wait time fees for every ride
`she took there.
`44.
`Passenger A attempted to request a refund of the wait time fees from Uber through a
`variety of means. When she could not locate a phone number to directly contact Uber, she posted a
`message on her Twitter account using Uber’s Twitter handle (@Uber). Passenger A also sent emails to
`Uber’s customer service email account.
`45.
`An Uber employee eventually responded to Passenger A and told her that the wait time
`fees were automatic and therefore Uber could not do anything to prevent them from being charged if
`Passenger A exceeded the two-minute time limit for any reason.
`46.
`Passenger A has not received a refund for any of the wait time fees she has been assessed.
`47.
`Passenger A felt angry and upset that Uber has charged her wait time fees for her daily
`rides to her rehabilitation appointments. Uber’s refusal to refund her money or to change its wait time
`fee policy makes Passenger A feel like a second-class citizen.
`
`Passenger B
`48.
`Passenger B is a 34-year-old man with cerebral palsy. He formerly lived in Philadelphia,
`Pennsylvania. In May 2019, Passenger B moved to Queens, a borough of New York City, New York, to
`accept a new job.
`49.
`Although he can walk short distances, Passenger B primarily uses a manual wheelchair
`for mobility purposes. The wheelchair can be collapsed and folded up when it needs to be stored in the
`trunk of a car.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`50.
`Prior to his relocation to New York in May 2019, Passenger B frequently used Uber for
`his transportation needs because he does not drive. Passenger B relied on Uber to provide transportation
`to visit friends and family, to commute to work occasionally, and to take him to social and leisure
`activities.
`51.
`Passenger B requests an Uber vehicle only when he is ready to be picked up and begin
`his trip. However, it takes Passenger B longer than two minutes to board the Uber vehicle because he
`must fold up his wheelchair and store it in the vehicle of the trunk, which often requires the driver’s
`assistance.
`52.
`In or around September 2018, Passenger B noticed on the receipts he received from Uber
`that he had been charged a wait time fee on multiple occasions.
`53.
`Passenger B reviewed his receipts and determined that Uber had charged him a wait time
`fee nearly every time he had used Uber since January 2018.
`54. When Passenger B contacted Uber’s customer service about the wait time fees, Uber
`initially refunded the fees he had been charged. However, after he received a certain amount of refunds,
`a customer service associate informed him that he had reached the maximum amount of refunds and
`Uber would no longer issue him any additional refunds.
`55.
`Passenger B felt angry, frustrated, and upset when he found out that Uber had charged
`him wait time fees because of his disability and refused to provide refunds after previously providing
`refunds.
`56.
`Similar to Passengers A and B, other individuals with disabilities throughout the country
`have likewise been discriminated against by Uber by being charged wait time fees because of their
`disabilities.
`57.
`Other potential Uber passengers with disabilities know of Uber’s wait time fees and will
`not use Uber because of those fees.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
`58.
`The United States re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the
`preceding paragraphs.
`59.
`Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with
`disabilities, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and
`its implementing regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 37, through its policies and practices of imposing wait time
`fees on passengers with disabilities who, because of disability, require more time to board the vehicle.
`60.
`Uber’s violations of the ADA amount to a pattern or practice of discrimination. Its
`discrimination against a person or group of persons raises an issue of general public importance. Such
`discrimination includes Uber’s failure to:
`a.
`Ensure adequate boarding time for passengers with disabilities, in violation of 42
`U.S.C. § 12184(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(i);
`b.
`Ensure equitable fares for transporting passengers with disabilities, in violation of
`42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) and 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5(d), 37.29(c);
`c. Make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, and procedures of
`charging a wait time fee as applied to passengers who, because of disability, require more time to board
`the vehicle. See 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a), (b)(2)(A); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.302
`(incorporated by reference in 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f)).
`61.
`Passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities have been harmed
`and continue to be harmed by Uber’s alleged violations of the ADA, and are entitled to monetary
`damages, including compensatory and emotional distress damages. 42 U.S.C. § 12188.
`
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`Plaintiff United States prays this Court:
`A.
`Grant judgment in favor of the United States and declare that Uber’s actions, policies,
`and practices, as alleged in this complaint, violate Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and its
`implementing regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 37;
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`B.
`Enjoin Uber, its officers, agents, employees, drivers, and all others in concert or in
`participation with it, from engaging in discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and from
`failing to comply with Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and its implementing regulation, 49
`C.F.R. Part 37;
`C.
`Order Uber to modify its policies, practices, and procedures, including its wait time fee
`policy, to comply with Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and its implementing regulation, 49
`C.F.R. Part 37;
`D.
`Order Uber to provide ADA training to its officers, agents, employees, drivers, and all
`others in concert or in participation with it;
`E.
`Award monetary damages, including compensatory damages for emotional distress and
`other injuries, to persons aggrieved by Uber’s actions or failures to act, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
`§ 12188(b)(2)(B);
`F.
`Assess a civil penalty against Uber pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(2)(C), to vindicate
`the public interest; and
`G.
`Order such other appropriate relief as the interests of justice may require, together with
`the United States’ costs and disbursements in this action.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-08735-DMR Document 1 Filed 11/10/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 10, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /s/Stephanie M. Hinds
`STEPHANIE M. HINDS
`Acting United States Attorney
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/David M. DeVito
`DAVID M. DEVITO
`Assistant United States Attorney
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/Kristen Clarke
`KRISTEN CLARKE
`Assistant Attorney General
`Civil Rights Division
`
`
`
`REBECCA B. BOND
`Chief
`
`
`
` /s/Cheryl Rost
`KATHLEEN P. WOLFE
`Special Litigation Counsel
`KEVIN J. KIJEWSKI
`Deputy Chief
`CHERYL ROST
`MATTHEW FAIELLA
`SARAH GOLABEK-GOLDMAN
`Trial Attorneys
`Disability Rights Section
`Civil Rights Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`