[Athen] FW: ADA Complaint against Uber has implications for on line services

[Susan Gjolmesli]

Thank you Scott…  As someone who is blind and who also has a Seeing Eye dog , who has been left at curbs by taxis who did not want the dog in their cars…I say – a service is a service, building, dispatcher or on line.  If someone has a bias for difference of any kind they ought not be in the business of providing services.
Bravo to our courts!

Regards,

S.

Susan Gjolmesli, Director
Disability Resource Center, B132
Phone: (425) 564-2498
http://www.bellevuecollege.edu/drc/


This email and any files transmitted may contain confidential information as protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 USC § 1232g and/or Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution is prohibited. Furthermore, if you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately by telephone or return e-mail and completely delete this message from your system.

From: athen-list [mailto:athen-list-bounces at mailman13.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Lissner, L S. (Scott )
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 11:20 AM
To: Access Technology Higher Education Network
Subject: [Athen] FW: ADA Complaint against Uber has implications for on line services


The Court allows the ADA Title III complaint against Uber to go forward despite Uber’s claim that as a virtual service they are not a place of public accommodation. The decision has potential implications for a wide range of on line services.

National Federation Of The Blind Of California; Kelly; Hingson; Pedersen
v.
Uber Technologies, Inc. Rasier Technologies Inc; Rasier, LLC; Rasier-CA, LLC
Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.

Last September the National Federation of the Blind California and three individuals filed a complaint<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1996572-gov-uscourts-cand-280572-1-0.html> in Federal Court against Uber stating that drivers routinely refused to serve riders who travel with service animals. Uber filed to have the case dismissed for lack of standing. stating in part that they are outside the ADA’s jurisdiction because they are not a place of public accommodation.  Uber’s argument is that they facilitate rides through technology having no storefront or building where their clients are served and are there for not a “place of public accommodation”.   In last week’s ruling<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1996492-gov-uscourts-cand-280572-37-0.html> for the plaintiffs the district court followed the reasoning of the First Circuit (37 F.3d 12, 13, 1994) where the Court reasoned that “by including ‘travel service’ among the list of services considered ‘public accommodations,’ Congress clearly contemplated that ‘service establishments’ include providers of services which do not require a person to physically enter an actual physical structure.” Circuits have  been split on this issue. Larry Paradis, Executive Director of Disability Rights Advocates which represents the plaintiffs stated that this ruling will help to establish that “new technology companies like Uber are subject to the same civil rights laws as other companies that have more traditional business models”

The ultimate decision may impact accessibility of digital only services offered to the public.   It would not shift the current obligations of colleges to ensure that their programs and services, including those offered digitally through third party vendors, are accessible. However a decision for the plaintiffs would likely increase the availability of accessible products in the market place.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman12.u.washington.edu/pipermail/athen-list/attachments/20150427/081e7460/attachment.html>