LYFT ON TRIAL: Do Ridehare Services Violate the ADA?

Wheelchair taxis are disappearing, but plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit hope to hold Lyft to the equal access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Photo courtesy Lyft.

Why are there fewer than 10 cities in the United States with wheelchair accessible rideshare services? Are companies like Lyft and Uber violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs)?

These questions and more will be considered by Judge Philip M. Halpern of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in a federal class action lawsuit that heads to trial on July 8, 2024.

In less than two weeks, I will be traveling to the United States Courthouse in White Plains, New York to report on a landmark case (previewed below), which may have a significant impact on the availability of wheelchair accessible rideshare services in New York State and across the country.

---

My work to report on critical stories in the world of accessible travel is possible only with the support of paid newsletter subscribers. Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a one-time or recurring gift via PayPal. Your support will allow me to give this trial the coverage it deserves.

---

Background

A class of wheelchair users, represented by plaintiffs Harriet Lowell, Westchester Disabled On The Move (WDOMI) members, and others, are challenging Lyft, Inc. on grounds of discrimination. The plaintiffs allege that Lyft's failure to provide equitable service to wheelchair users violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). They hope the court will reverse Lyft’s accessibility policy, which the former head of Lyft’s national WAV program, Chris Wu, said is to do “as little as possible unless forced” to serve people with disabilities.

Plaintiffs and the classes are represented by the law firms of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP; Morgan and Morgan; and an attorney from the ADA Compliance Service.

The Plaintiffs’ Case

The plaintiffs argue that Lyft has systematically discriminated against disabled people by severely limiting or outright blocking access to WAVs across the majority of its service regions. According to the plaintiffs’ pre-trial memorandum, Lyft only offers WAV service in areas where they are compelled to do so by regulatory pressures, representing a mere 4% of Lyft's total service areas. The remaining 96% of regions, which include densely populated areas as well as more rural locations, lack WAV service altogether.

The plaintiffs propose nine modifications to Lyft’s policies to remedy this situation:

1. Remove the App Blocker: Lyft should eliminate the feature that hides WAV options from users in non-access regions, making WAVs automatically visible as a transportation option.

2. Survey Drivers About WAV Access: Lyft should inquire whether their drivers have access to WAVs, potentially increasing the pool of available WAV drivers.

3. Cross-Dispatching: Allow WAV drivers to receive ride requests for both standard and WAV modes to improve service efficiency.

4. Implement Priority Logic: Prioritize WAV requests to ensure that WAVs are allocated effectively, similar to practices in New York City.

5. Increase Marketing: Enhance advertising efforts to attract more WAV drivers and raise awareness among potential riders.

6. Incentivize WAV Drivers: Offer bonuses and incentives to encourage more drivers to operate WAVs.

7. Include WAVs in Rental Programs: Make WAVs available through Lyft’s Express Drive and FlexDrive rental programs.

8. Form Partnerships: Collaborate with car rental, taxi, and other transportation companies that have WAVs to increase available WAV supply.

9. Accessibility Surcharge: Implement a ten-cent surcharge on all rides to fund WAV services.

The plaintiffs contend that these modifications are reasonable and necessary to ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to Lyft's services. They argue that Lyft's current practices not only fail to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act but also cause significant harm to those who rely on WAVs for transportation.

Lyft's Defense

Lyft counters that the plaintiffs' proposed modifications are not feasible and would impose undue financial and logistical burdens on the company. According to Lyft's pre-trial brief, the company has invested significant resources into experimenting with WAV services over the past eight years but has struggled with high costs and limited availability of WAVs. Lyft argues that the plaintiffs lack concrete evidence to show that their proposed modifications would result in effective and sustainable wheelchair accessible transportation.

Lyft advanced several key arguments in its brief:

1. Economic and Logistical Challenges: WAVs are expensive to convert and maintain, and there is a shortage of drivers willing to operate them. Lyft claims that no rideshare company has found a cost-effective solution for on-demand WAV service, and that the provision of such services constitutes an undue financial burden.

2. Market Realities: Lyft claims that the demand for WAVs is relatively low, and providing such services would require significant financial subsidies and regulatory changes.

3. Current Efforts and Investments: Lyft states that it already offers WAV services in several regions and spends over $10 million annually on those efforts. The company argues that expanding WAV services nationwide is not practical given the current economic and logistical constraints.

4. Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Lyft maintains that its current practices comply with existing regulations and that further modifications would constitute a fundamental alteration of the company’s business model.

Lyft claims that its expert witnesses will testify that the plaintiffs’ proposed modifications would not only be financially burdensome but also fail to deliver the reliable WAV service that the plaintiffs demand. They argue that the proposed accessibility surcharge and other financial incentives would not be sufficient to cover the high costs associated with WAV services.

What issues must the court resolve?

I am not an attorney, but reached out to a few that I consider to be friends and advisors. They suggest that Judge Halpern will weight the following factors in deciding the case:

• Effectiveness of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Modifications — Will the plaintiffs be able to demonstrate that their proposed changes would result in effective WAV service without imposing disproportionate costs on Lyft?

• Reasonableness and Feasibility — Are the proposed modifications “reasonable” under the accepted standards associated with the ADA and NYSHRL? Are Lyft’s objections to the proposed modifications valid?

• Cost-Benefit Analysis — The court will likely assess the costs associated with implementing the plaintiffs’ proposed changes, weighing those costs against the expected benefits of providing WAV service to individuals with disabilities. The scope and effectiveness of whatever WAV service may result could be critical here, however it may prove difficult for the court or observers to trust any predictive measure.

• Legal Compliance and Business Model — Would the proposed modifications fundamentally alter Lyft’s business model and do Lyft’s current practices comply with existing regulatory requirements?

Final Thoughts and What’s At Stake

The growth of app-based rideshare services like Lyft and Uber has placed significant pressure on traditional taxi companies and, as a result, wheelchair accessible taxis are disappearing from the majority of American cities. Wheelchair users have long demanded that rideshare operators be held to an equal access standard, and this landmark case will ask the court to affirm that disabled people have a right to access those services.

The court’s ruling will have important implications for Lyft and its competitors, and it will be closely watched by companies that aim to disrupt the transportation sector. The central question is, must the future of innovation be wheelchair accessible?

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York does not participate in the Cameras in the Courtroom pilot program, and so news from the trial will need to be provided by those physically present in the gallery. Given the importance of this case, I think it important to be there and for Wheelchair Travel readers to be informed. If you are able to support this critical work, please upgrade to a paid subscription.