Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2022 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`ANSEL DAVIS, an individual,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`vs.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`a California corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`_______________________________________/
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, ANSEL DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (hereinafter
`
`“Plaintiff”), sues Defendant, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter “UBER”), and alleges:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`Defendant is a taxi rideshare company, that provides transportation services to the
`
`public throughout the State of Florida, including but not limited to Broward County, Florida.
`
`Because it is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people, Defendant is a covered
`
`entity under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”), and relevant related
`
`implementing regulations.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff is blind and uses a guide dog to navigate. Because he is blind, Plaintiff
`
`cannot drive, and depends on third party services, including UBER, to travel locally. In this case,
`
`UBER has repeatedly, consistently, and incessantly failed and/or refused to transport Plaintiff,
`
`only because he is accompanied by a guide dog. This conduct by UBER violates the ADA.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant has been sued repeatedly (by other blind and visually impaired
`
`individuals) for the same issues that are raised in this case and Defendant has itself acknowledged
`
`(to Plaintiff) that the conduct here at issue is unlawful (and promised that it would be remedied).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2022 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`Those promises, however, have been hollow meaningless boilerplate, and Defendant’s drivers
`
`continue to refuse to transport Plaintiff because of his guide dog. Defendant is directly responsible
`
`for complying with its own non-delegable duty to adhere to ADA requirements and is also
`
`vicariously liable for ADA violations of its drivers.
`
`4.
`
`Each instance of unlawful discrimination by UBER has left Plaintiff, who is blind,
`
`stranded away from home with no transportation (to say nothing of the humiliation and rejection
`
`of being repeatedly abandoned by drivers). Plaintiff has also been charged for rides he was not
`
`given (because the driver refused to take his service animal), charged cancelation fees for rides
`
`illegally canceled by UBER drivers themselves, and UBER has failed to make promised
`
`compensatory payments or to immediately refund wrongful cancelation charges.
`
`5.
`
`This conduct is continuing, despite multiple lawsuits against UBER by others
`
`experiencing the same issues, and constant empty promises to cure. Defendant is clearly undeterred
`
`and unmoved by litigation aimed at rectifying this misconduct, and at this point, it is clear that
`
`only a punitive damage award might possibly cause UBER to take effective action to cure this
`
`persisting misconduct.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to Title III
`
`of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., as well as damages and punitive
`
`damages pursuant to Chapter 768, Florida Statutes. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction
`
`over Plaintiff’s ADA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343, and supplemental
`
`jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2022 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper and lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 in that all or
`
`most of the transactions or occurrences giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Broward County,
`
`Florida, which is located within this District.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is subject to the personal jurisdiction
`
`of this Court; Defendant is and has been violating the civil rights of blind persons in this District
`
`through, inter alia, its pattern of conduct set forth herein. Defendant is providing services to
`
`consumers throughout this District and causing damage to certain of those consumers whose civil
`
`rights are violated. Defendant employs drivers throughout the State of Florida, including within
`
`Broward County, Florida, to provide transportation services, is registered to do business in Florida,
`
`and maintains a registered agent in Plantation, Florida, which is located in Broward County.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff, ANSEL DAVIS, was and is over the age of 18 years, sui juris, and a
`
`resident of Broward County, Florida.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff has at all material times suffered from a “qualified disability” under the
`
`ADA. Plaintiff is blind. He requires a guide dog to avoid obstacles and to otherwise navigate and
`
`traverse unknown terrain. Because he is blind, Plaintiff cannot drive, and is reliant on other forms
`
`of transportation, including UBER, to travel locally.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., was and is a for-profit Delaware
`
`corporation, which is registered to do business, and is doing business, in Florida. Defendant uses
`
`its smartphone application software to arrange rides between passengers and its drivers, much like
`
`the way in which a taxi dispatcher coordinates rides between passengers and its taxi drivers.
`
`7.
`
`On at least a dozen occasions (that he specifically complained about to UBER),
`
`Plaintiff called for a ride through his UBER app, only to have the assigned driver refuse him service
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2022 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`because he was accompanied by a guide dog. Many of these instances have been witnessed by
`
`third parties, one instance resulted in a police report in which the officer at the scene determined
`
`that the UBER driver violated Florida law by this conduct, and one instance was documented by a
`
`freelance journalist – and every instance left Plaintiff stranded away from home, delayed,
`
`scrambling to find alternative transportation (sometime from strangers), and/or forced to expend
`
`money on alternate travel methods. Adding insult to injury, Plaintiff has been charged cancelation
`
`fees, for rides that were illegally canceled by UBER drivers. Defendant has acknowledged these
`
`issues, and represented that the issues would be cured, but never to any effect. Defendant also
`
`promised payment as compensation to Plaintiff, which was never actually paid.
`
`8.
`
`These issues persist unabated, notwithstanding Defendant’s actual knowledge of
`
`the problem, and feckless promises to cure these issue. Defendant has failed to effectively enforce
`
`any policy or procedure requiring compliance with the ADA as it relates to service animals, has
`
`failed to remove drivers from its system when they willfully cancel rides based on disability
`
`(service animal), failed to effectively train new and existing drivers to comply with their obligation
`
`to transport service animals, and failed to protect Plaintiff (and others) from discrimination
`
`perpetrated by UBER drivers even after being put on repeated specific notice that this was and is
`
`a recurring problem.
`
`FACTS
`
`9.
`
` Plaintiff is blind and is a resident of Broward County, Florida. Plaintiff uses a guide
`
`dog to navigate in unfamiliar places, and to otherwise assist with the challenges presented by his
`
`inability to see. Plaintiff cannot drive and therefore depends on third parties for transportation.
`
`Plaintiff uses UBER services for local rides.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2022 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Over the past five (5) years, Plaintiff has been discriminated against by Defendant
`
`on a consistent basis, through the chronic failure of UBER drivers to allow Plaintiff to be
`
`accompanied by his guide dog, and by denial of services to Plaintiff based on his service animal.
`
`A screenshot from Defendant’s app showing the number of complaints that Plaintiff has lodged
`
`regarding discrimination by UBER drivers is attached as Exhibit “A.”
`
`11.
`
`By way of specific illustrations, on June 1, 2022, Plaintiff was waiting to be picked
`
`up by an UBER driver in Plantation, Florida. His guide dog was under his control, on a leash with
`
`guide dog harness, and was clearly marked as a service dog. See Police Report dated June 1, 2022,
`
`attached as Exhibit “B.” Plaintiff heard a notification from his phone that the UBER driver had
`
`arrived. Plaintiff heard the driver speaking to a nearby bystander, who indicated to the driver that
`
`Plaintiff was the passenger. Exhibit “B.” The driver specifically stated that he would not allow
`
`Plaintiff’s service dog into the vehicle, at which point the bystander protested that the dog was a
`
`service animal, and that Plaintiff is blind. Exhibit “B.” The driver refused, and left, stranding
`
`Plaintiff with no ride, standing by the side of the road.
`
`12.
`
`Police officers were called, and officers at the scene concluded that “the Uber driver
`
`clearly interfered with the rights of an individual with a disability by denying him admittance to a
`
`public accommodation.” Exhibit “B.” The police officers then drove Plaintiff to his destination,
`
`since he was now stranded, and police also helped him to get a refund from UBER, which had
`
`charged him a fee for the ride that he was denied. Exhibit “B.” The police then attempted to
`
`access UBER’s “Law Enforcement Response Team” so that they could identify the driver, but
`
`conveniently for Defendant, the system was not working. Exhibit “B.”
`
`13.
`
`On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff had just finished a haircut and called for an UBER to take
`
`him home. He asked people in the barbershop to look out for the UBER and to let him know when
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2022 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`it arrives. When the UBER arrived, Plaintiff went out to meet it, and in front of multiple witnesses,
`
`the driver proclaimed “I don’t take dogs. Period.” The driver then left, and kept driving, without
`
`canceling Plaintiff’s trip. Plaintiff was completely stranded. One of the witnesses to this incident
`
`agreed to drive Plaintiff home – luckily. This incident was documented, along with witness names
`
`and statements at the scene, by a freelance journalist who happened to be present, and who
`
`memorialized what took place that day.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant is acutely aware of these and many other examples of discrimination to
`
`which Plaintiff and others are being continuously subjected but has done nothing to remedy the
`
`issue. On April 27, 2021, UBER promised Plaintiff that it would “remind” its driver (who
`
`discriminated against Plaintiff) to “follow all laws.” Composite Exhibit “C.” After the June 1,
`
`2022, incident described above, UBER assured Plaintiff that it would “deal with this immediately.”
`
`Composite Exhibit “C.” After the July 8, 2022, incident, UBER promised “we will get this sorted
`
`out for you.” All these boilerplate, empty, feckless promises by UBER amount to nothing. There
`
`is never any follow-up, and these false promises serve as cold comfort to Plaintiff and other blind
`
`passengers who continue to be stranded roadside by UBER drivers.
`
`15.
`
`These are only the most recent examples of the discrimination that Plaintiff (and
`
`untold numbers of others) has been suffering because UBER cannot (or just will not) enforce non-
`
`discrimination policies to protect the blind and visually impaired. Defendant has been sued
`
`repeatedly for this issue,1 and the media and Internet are replete with stories about UBER drivers
`
`discriminating against blind passengers,2 yet UBER continues to discriminate against the disabled
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Jolliff vs. Uber Technologies, Inc., et. al., EDVA Case No. 16-605; National Federation Of The Blind Of
`California, et. al. vs. Uber Technologies, Inc. NDCA Case No. 14-4086; Phan vs. Uber Technologies, Inc. et. al.,
`NDCA Case No. 22-440; Greco vs. Uber Technologies, Inc., et. al., NDCA Case No. 20-2698; Jainchill vs. Uber
`Technologies, Inc., SDFL Case No. 17-61075.
`
` 2
`
` The list of stories online about this issue is significant. As just a few examples: Blind Man With Guide Dog Denied
`Uber Ride, Stands Up For Rights (https://youtu.be/7HmUnjhJDko); Uber driver refused service to Murfreesboro
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2022 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`– unabated by lawsuits or bad publicity. At this point, nothing short of a punitive damage award
`
`in an amount that will change this ongoing misconduct might correct UBER’s incessant and
`
`continuing discrimination.
`
`COUNT I
`VIOLATION OF THE ADA
`
`Plaintiff re-avers and re-alleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-15 above,
`
`16.
`
`as though fully set forth herein.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant was, a qualified individual with a disability
`
`within the meaning of ADA and Department of Transportation (“DOT”) regulations implementing
`
`the ADA, because he is blind, and therefore cannot see.
`
`18.
`
`UBER is a covered entity under the ADA because it is a transportation company
`
`that is “primarily engaged in the business of transporting people” and its “operations affect
`
`commerce.” 42 U.S.C. § 12184. Uber has non-delegable duties under the ADA to provide its
`
`transportation services to qualified individuals with disabilities in non-discriminatory fashion.
`
`19.
`
`UBER (directly and indirectly through its employee drivers) owns, operates, or
`
`leases vehicles providing taxi service and specified public transportation within the meaning of
`
`Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations. UBER also operates a “demand responsive
`
`system” as that term is defined by ADA and DOT regulations.
`
`20.
`
`As set forth above, UBER’s acts and omissions have violated Plaintiff’s civil rights
`
`under the ADA and its implementing regulations. UBER is directly liable for these violations and
`
`is also vicariously liable for the discriminatory misconduct of its drivers.
`
`
`guide dog (https://youtu.be/nKsO7UNfabw; Most Uber Drivers Discriminate Against Service Dog Users
`(www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhHve1-kAWM); Uber driver refuses to pick up blind paratriathlete with service dog
`(www.youtube.com/watch?v=EggyeR0XhsQ).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2022 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`21.
`
`UBER s directly liable for failing to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure
`
`that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated, or otherwise treated
`
`differently than other individuals, even though taking such steps would not fundamentally alter the
`
`nature of its services and would not constitute an undue burden.
`
`22.
`
`UBER is directly liable for its own failure to properly/effectively train its drivers to
`
`comply with basic civil rights laws (to say nothing of common decency) by transporting blind
`
`passengers with their guide dogs. This failure persists notwithstanding repeated empty promises
`
`by UBER to enforce such policies.
`
`23.
`
`UBER is vicariously liable for discrimination perpetrated by its drivers during their
`
`employment with or by UBER because it has a nondelegable legal duty under the ADA to ensure
`
`that these drivers do not screen out blind individuals with service animals (like Plaintiff), thus
`
`preventing them from fully enjoying UBER services.
`
`24.
`
`UBER is vicariously liable for discrimination perpetrated by its drivers in the
`
`course of their employment with or by UBER, because UBER has a non-delegable duty to ensure
`
`that its services are not denied to the disabled purely on the basis of disability.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and others with disabilities
`
`unless and until it is compelled by this Court to remediate the ADA violations set forth herein, and
`
`to ensure that no qualified individual with a disability is ever excluded by any UBER driver based
`
`on the presence of a service animal, by making appropriate alterations to policies and procedures.
`
`WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff, ANSEL DAVIS, respectfully requests
`
`that final judgment be entered in his favor, and against Defendant, UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`INC., including (a) a permanent injunction pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
`
`U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., requiring Defendants to take the steps necessary to ensure that UBER
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2022 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`drivers who provide UBER taxi services do not unlawfully refuse to transport blind and visually
`
`impaired individuals with service animals (including Plaintiff); (b) an order awarding Plaintiff
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 12188; and (c) all such other
`
`relief as this Court deemed just and equitable under the circumstances here presented.
`
`COUNT II
`NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION
`
`Plaintiff re-avers and re-alleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-15 above,
`
`26.
`
`as though fully set forth herein.
`
`27.
`
`UBER has at all times had a duty to properly train its drivers with regard to the
`
`basic legal requirements of their job, and to enforce those requirements.
`
`28.
`
`UBER has failed to effectively train or instruct its drivers regarding their mandatory
`
`legal obligations imposed by the ADA, regarding transporting service animals, including guide
`
`dogs for the blind and visually impaired.
`
`29.
`
`UBER has failed to effectively enforce any existing policies or procedures that it
`
`may have in place for drivers (if any), which require drivers to transport service animals, including
`
`guide dogs, for the blind and visually impaired.
`
`30.
`
`UBER has been sued repeatedly for these persistent failings, and effectively admits
`
`its own failures in this regard, as set forth in Paragraph 14, above.
`
`31.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of UBER’s failure to properly/effectively institute
`
`effective policies and procedures required by the ADA, and/or its failure to effectively enforce
`
`policies and procedures required by the ADA, Plaintiff has suffered damages including deprivation
`
`of use of funds deducted from his bank account (until those funds were later returned),
`
`inconvenience and expense of locating alternative transportation, failure to pay compensatory
`
`amounts as promised, and such other damages as the Court may find and award in this case.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2022 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reason, Plaintiff, ANSEL DAVIS, respectfully request
`
`that this Court enter judgment in his favor against Defendant, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., for
`
`compensatory damages in an amount deemed just and equitable in this case, and for punitive
`
`damages in an amount sufficient to deter UBER’s ongoing misconduct described herein (motion
`
`for leave to amend to seek punitive damages to follow).
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on any issues so triable as a matter of right.
`
`DATED this 3rd day of August, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully Submitted,
`
` LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
` 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
`
` Boca Raton, FL 33431
`
` PH: (954) 745-0588
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Nolan Klein, Esq.
`
` NOLAN K. KLEIN, ESQUIRE
`
` Florida Bar No. 647977
`
` klein@nklegal.com
`
` amy@nklegal.com
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`