Judith Smith v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Docket No. RG18894507 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb 27, 2018), Court Docket

Current on Bloomberg Law as of 2018-02-27 20:20:11
California Superior Court Alameda County Docket for Case #: RG18894507

Judith Smith v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

DOCKET INFORMATION Minimize
Date Filed: Status: Case Type:

Feb 27, 2018 Open Civil Rights

Parties and Attorneys
Expand All Minimize

Plaintiff
Representation
Sidney Wolinsky Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, California 94704-1204 Fax: (510) 665-8511 Phone: (510) 665-8644 swolinsky@dralegal.org

Judith Smith An Individual Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Julie Fuller An Individual Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Sascha Bittner An Individual Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Independent Living Resources Center of San Francisco A California Non-Profit Corporation Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Community Resources for Independent Living A California Non-Profit Corporation Plaintiff

Defendant

Uber Technologies, Inc.
© 2020 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Services
// PAGE 1

Judith Smith v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Docket No. RG18894507 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb 27, 2018), Court Docket

A Delaware Corporation Defendant

Defendant

Rasier, LLC A Delaware Corporation Defendant

Defendant

Rasier-CA, LLC A Delaware Corporation Defendant

Defendant

Does 1-20, Individuals Defendant

This does not constitute the official record of the court. The information is provided "as is" and may be subject to errors or omissions.

© 2020 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Services
// PAGE 2

 
 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
1 II SIDNEY WOLINSKY (Bar No. 33716)

MELISSA RIESS (Bar No. 295959) 2 112001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

Berkeley, California 94704-1204
3 II Telephone: (510) 665-8644

Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 4 11 swolinsky@dralegal.org

mriess@dralegal.org 5 11

CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 6 11 MARK A. CHAVEZ (Bar No. 90858)

NANCE F. BECKER (Bar No. 99292)
7 I I 42 Miller Avenue

Mill Valley, California 94941
8 II Telephone: (415) 381-5599

Facsimile: (415) 381-5572 9 11 mark@chavezgertler.com

II nance@chavezgertler.com
io

11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
II

I llllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll 111111111111111111
20661779
FILED
ALAMEDA COUNT
FEB 2 7 2018
CLERK 0~THE SUPERIOR COURT
By_ 17A,CQu ~
ER1r,p ~/lKCCj flenuty

12

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

14 II JVPITH SMITH, an individual, JULIE

a ) Case No.: JRG ll. 8 9 ~ 5 0 7

15 II FULLER, an individual, SASCHA BITTNER, )

an individual, INDEPENDENT LIVING
16 II RESOURCES CENTER OF SAN

) CLASS ACTION )

FRANCISCO, a California non-profit

) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

17 II corporation, and COMMUNITY RESOURCES ) DECLARATORY RELIEF

FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, a California )

18 11 non-profit corporation,

)

)

19

Plaintiffs,

)

)

20

V.

)

) 21 11 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware )

'Corporation, RASIER, LLC, a Delaware

)

22 11 Corporation, RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware )

23

Corporation, and DOES
II

1-20, individuals,

Defendants. 24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DEC LARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy ongoing discrimination against persons with

3 mobility disabilities who want to, but cannot, use the on-demand transportation service operated

4 by Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber"). Since launching their transportation service in San

5 Francisco in July 2010, Uber has experienced explosive growth, has seized an ever-expanding

6 market share from taxi companies and is now a major provider of individual transportation

7 services in over 450 cities in the United States. Unfortunately, in its rapid growth into a multi-

8 billion-dollar behemoth, Uber has largely ignored its legal responsibility to provide its

9 transportation service to individuals who use wheelchair accessible vehicles ("WAVs").

10

2. Uber is one of the leading companies in the new "sharing economy." It provides

11 on-demand rides to individuals through its network of over 2,000,000 drivers globally. The riders

12 pay Uber through Uber's smart phone application with their credit cards, and Uber splits the

13 payments with its drivers. Uber's phenomenal success and unparalleled growth pose an existential

14 threat to traditional taxi service, and Uber has invested heavily in what it considers to be

15 transportation technologies of the future, including autonomous vehicles. As a result Uber's

16 market value has grown to over $50 billion.

17

3. It appears that the future of on-demand transportation belongs to Uber and that,

18 unless forced to do so by this Court, Uber will exclude disabled individuals from that future. As

19 detailed below, Uber's acts and practices deny individuals who need wheelchair accessible

20 vehicles equal access to the service it provides, and prevent them from obtaining the benefits of

21 its service. Such conduct directly violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §51 et seq.,

22 which is California's principal bulwark against all forms of discrimination including

23 discrimination on the basis of a disability, and the Disabled Persons Act, Civil Code §54, et seq.,

24 which guarantees individuals with disabilities the same access as other members of the public to

25 all advantages and privileges of public facilities, including transportation services.

26

4. It is fully within Uber's power to provide accessible service. Uber tightly controls

27 all aspects of how both its drivers and riders use the service, mediating all payments, regulating

28 the types of vehicles the drivers use, and offering financial incentives to ensure that there are

COMPLAJNT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1 11 enough drivers on the road to meet the demand for rides. Moreover, Uber is already providing

2 widespread wheelchair accessible transportation in London and six other cities around the United

3 Kingdom. Uber could similarly end its discrimination against people in California who need

4 wheelchair accessible vehicles if it chose to do so.

5

5. This is not a case about money. This litigation is intended to halt Uber's ongoing

6 11 discrimination against individuals with mobility disabilities. Plaintiffs seek only injunctive and

7 declaratory relief to redress Uber's violations of California law. Because Defendants' practices

8 adversely impact hundreds, if not thousands, of disabled individuals, Plaintiffs ask the Court to

9 11 certify their claims for class treatment and to order relief that will benefit all members of the

10 II Class.

11 II

PARTIES

12

6. Plaintiff Judith Smith is an individual residing in Alameda County. She uses a

13 motorized wheelchair and would use Uber but for the unavailability of wheelchair accessible

14 Ubers. Because Ms. Smith has heard about and witnessed the unavailability of the service she has

15 not downloaded Uber's application because she knows trying to use Uber would be futile.

16

7. Plaintiff Julie Fuller is an individual residing in Alameda County. She uses a

17 11 motorized wheelchair and would use Uber but for the unavailability of wheelchair accessible

18 Ubers. She has learned that WAVs are not available through Uber from other wheelchair users,

19 and people she knows at ILRC. She has not downloaded Uber's application because she knows

20 trying to use the service would be futile.

21

8. Plaintiff Sascha Bittner is an individual residing in San Francisco. She uses a

22 11 motorized wheelchair and would use Uber but for the unavailability of wheelchair accessible

23 Ubers. She has witnessed family members attempt to call wheelchair accessible Ubers and knows

24 that they are not reliably available. She would use Uber's WAV service if she could count on it

25 for reliable door-to-door transportation.

26

9. Plaintiff Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco ("ILRC") is a

27 disability rights advocacy and support organization. Its mission is to ensure that people with

28 disabilities are full social and economic partners within their families and within a fully accessible

2 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1 community. Uber's discriminatory policies and practices regularly impose economic harms on

2 ILRC, frustrate the organization's efforts to engage in its core advocacy work, and force it to

3 divert resources that it needs to spend on other work. Plaintiff ILRC sues on behalf of itself and in

4 furtherance of its mission of ensuring that people with disabilities are fully integrated into the

5 11 social and economic fabric of their communities.

6

10. Plaintiff Community Resources for Independent Living ("CRIL") is a disability

7 11 rights advocacy and support organization located in Hayward, California. CRIL supports people
8 II with disabilities in southern Alameda County to live independently, advocate for themselves, and 9 II access services, programs, activities, resources, and facilities in the community. CRIL's

10 11 consumers include individuals who use motorized wheelchairs and scooters and would use Uber

11 but for unavailability of wheelchair accessible Ubers. CRJL participates in advocacy on a variety

12 of issues affecting people with disabilities, including mobility and transportation. Uber' s

13 discriminatory policies and practices regularly impose economic harms on CRIL by frustrating its

14 11 efforts to engage in its core advocacy work, and by forcing it to divert resources that it needs to

15 11 spend on other work. Plaintiff CRIL sues on behalf of itself and in furtherance of its mission of

16 11 ensuring that people with disabilities receive full and equal access to the services and facilities.

17

11.

Defendant

Uber

Technologies,

Inc.

("Uber"

1 )

is

a

for-profit

corporation

th~t

18 11 provides on-demand transportation services throughout California, including in Alameda and San

19 11 Francisco Counties. Uber is registered in Delaware and its principal place of business is San

20 11 Francisco, California.

21

12. Defendant Rasier, LLC ("Rasier") is a for-profit corporation registered in

22 II Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Rasier is a subsidiary

23 II of Uber Technologies, Inc.

24

13. Defendant Rasier-CA, LLC ("Rasier") is a for-profit corporation registered in

25 II Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Rasier is a subsidiary 26 II of Uber Technologies, Inc.

27

28
1 The name "Uber" will be used to refer to all Defendants named in this Complaint.
3 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1

14. Defendants Does 1 through 20 are persons or entities whose true names and

2 11 capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue them by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs

3 11 are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants

4 perpetrated or is responsible for some or all of the wrongful acts and omissions alleged herein.

5 Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to state the true names and capacities of

6 such fictitiously named Defendants if and when they are ascertained.

7

15. At all times mentioned herein, each Doe Defendant was the agent or employee of

8 11 the other Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency or employment.

9 11 The Defendants are jointly and severally liable.

10 II

VENUE

11

16. Venue is proper in this Court and in this County pursuant to Code of Civil

12 11 Procedure §§395 and 395.5, because Defendants do business in this County, the business

13 11 practices at issue were conducted throughout California, including in this County, liability arose

14 11 in this County, and events and conduct giving rise to the violations of law asserted herein

15 occurred in this County. In particular, Plaintiffs Judith Smith and Julie Fuller reside in this

16 County, and they have suffered discrimination on the basis of their disabilities and been deterred

17 from taking advantage of the transportation service offered by Uber in this County. Plaintiff CRIL

18 also has its principal place of business in this County, and has likewise suffered injury here.

19 II

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20

17. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §382, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of

21 themselves and all other persons similarly situated. The Class consists of all individuals in

22 Alameda and San Francisco Counties who are disabled because of a mobility impairment, utilize

23 wheelchairs and therefore use accessible transportation, and who have been and continue to be

24 deterred from using Uber's transportation service due to Uber's discriminatory acts and practices.

25 Excluded from the Class is any individual who has previously utilized Uber and/or has

26 downloaded the Uber application, and Uber' s officers and employees.
27

28

4 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

I

1

18. Plaintiffs are unable to state the precise number of potential members of the

2 proposed Class. The Class numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands, and members of the Class

3 are sufficiently numerous and geographically diverse that joinder of all members is impracticable.

4

19. There is a community of interest among the members of the proposed Class in that

5 11 there are questions of law and fact common to all of their claims. Those common issues include,

6 11 but are not limited to: whether Uber provides the transportation services Plaintiffs need; and

7 11 whether Uber's practices violate the Unruh Act and the Disabled Persons Act.

8

20. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of, and not antagonistic to, the claims of all other

9 11 members of the Class because Uber conducted and continues to conduct its business in a manner

10 11 which caused, continues to cause, and will in future cause all Class members to suffer the same or

11 similar injury. Plaintiffs, by advancing their claims, will also advance the claims of all other

12 similarly-situated individuals.

13

21. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of absent

14 11 Class members. There are no material conflicts between Plaintiffs' claims and those of absent

15 Class members that would make class certification inappropriate. Plaintiffs' counsel are

16 experienced in disability rights and class action litigation, and will vigorously assert Plaintiffs'

17 11 claims and the claims of all Class members.

18

22. A class action is superior to other potential methods for achieving a fair and

19 efficient adjudication of this controversy. Whatever difficulties may exist in the management of

20 this case as a class action will be greatly outweighed by the benefits of the class action procedure,

21 including but not limited to providing Class members with a method for the redress and

22 prevention of their injuries and claims that could not, given the complexity of the issues and the

23 nature of the requested relief, be pursued in individual litigation. Further, the prosecution of

24 separate actions by the individual Class members, even if possible, would create a risk of

25 inconsistent or varying adjudications and incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendant.

26 11

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

27

23. Uber provides transportation services to members of the general public, including

28 11 in Alameda County and San Francisco County.

5 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1

24. Uber is not a broker or a middleman merely facilitating a transaction through a

2 smart phone application. Instead, it provides transportation to its customers by recruiting and

3 retaining a network of drivers who contractually agree to provide rides to Uber's customers in

4 accordance with terms and conditions specified by Uber. Similarly, Uber's customers must enter

5 11 into contracts with Uber to utilize its service on terms and conditions specified by Uber. In all

6 11 material respects, including the financial terms, the transactions between the drivers and the

7 11 customers are dictated, mediated, and controlled by Uber. There are no negotiations between
8 II Uber's drivers and its customers. And Uber takes the lion's share of the revenues generated in the

9 11 transactions.

10

25. Uber provides different levels of transportation service around the country. In

11 11 Alameda and San Francisco Counties, the company offers UberX, its basic rideshare option, Uber

12 POOL, a carpooling service, Uber Select and Uber Black, premium transportation services, and

13 UberXL and UberSUV, services limited to larger vehicles. In addition, it purports to offer Uber

14 Assist, a service in which the drivers have self-certified as being willing to assist riders with

15 mobility disabilities, and UberWAV, a car service option offering wheelchair accessible vehicles.

16

26. Uber has created a genuinely new mode of transportation, generating both the

17 demand for rides and the supply of drivers by incentivizing both the riders and the drivers to

18 participate in the service. Without Uber, this new mode of transportation would not exist.

19

27. Moreover, Uber perceives itself as creating a new transportation service which

20 11 transcends the technology. Uber urges commuters to consider it a "daily transportation option" or

21 one that complements their use of other modes of transportation ("While public transportation is

22 still very much a necessity, research has found that Uber acts as an important complement for

23 11 commuters.t") Uber has even compared itself to a utility ("Today we aspire to make

24 transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere and for everyone'") and touted the ability

25 of its transportation service to tackle difficult public policy issues such as "congestion, pollution

26

27 112 Uber.com, How Uber Can Be a Daily Transit Option, https://www.uber.com/newsroom/how-uber-can-be-a-daily-
transportation-option/, October 5, 2016.
28 I I 3 Uber.com, Celebrating Cities: A New Look and Feel for Uber, https://www.uber.com/newsroom/celebrating-cities-
a-new-look-and-feel-for-uber- 7/, February 3, 2016.
6
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1 11 and parking by getting more people into fewer cars."4 In Uber's own words: "Our work doesn't

2 11 end with transporting people." In the words of the Northern District of California: "Uber does

3 11 not simply sell software; it sells rides." O'Connor v. Uber Techs. Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1141

4 (N.D Cal. 2015).

5 UBER DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WITH MOBILITY DISABILITIES

6

BY FAILING TO PROVIDE WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE VEIDCLES

7

28. Uber purports to offer access to wheelchair accessible vehicles to users in the Bay

8 Area. However, although the app includes an UberWAV button, the reality is that this button is a

9 sham. UberWAV does not provide effective service to people who need UberWAVs. Wheelchair

10 accessible Ubers are rarely, if ever, available in the Bay Area. When an UberWAV is available,

11 11 the wait times for these vehicles are on average five times longer than for non-wheelchair

12 11 accessible UberX. This is not an effective or viable component of Uber's transportation system.

13

29. Plaintiffs tested a number of central locations around the Bay Area daily between

14 11 November 2017 and January 2018. In Alameda County, not a single wheelchair accessible Uber

15 was available during a total of 120 tests. In San Francisco, over 60 tests, a wheelchair accessible

16 Uber was completely unavailable almost five times out of six. In the rare instance where a WAV

17 11 was available, the average wait time was about five times longer than the wait for an UberX at the

18 11 same location.

19

30. Uber riders who use wheelchair accessible vehicles are also denied access to all

20 11 but one of Uber's transportation classes. Riders who use wheelchairs requiring lifts or ramps can

21 only travel in an UberWAV, not an UberPOOL carpool, not a large vehicle such as UberXL or

22 UberSUV, not a deluxe vehicle such as UberBLACK or UberSelect.

23

31. Uber has been sued in cities around the United States for its violation of disability

24 I I laws by failing to provide wheelchair-accessible service, yet has continued its policy of denying

25 that service. See, e.g., Equal Rights Center v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. l 7-cv-01272 (D.D.C.

26 filed 6/28/2017), Access Living ofMetropolitan Chicago v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-cv-

27
4 Travis Kalanick, Uber's Plan to Get More People Into Fewer Cars,
28 11 https://www.ted.com/talks/travis kalanick uber s plan to get more people into fewer cars, February 2016.
5 Uber.com, Advanced Technology Group, https://www.uber.com/info/atg/
7 COMPLAINT FOR lNJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1 09690 (N.D. Ill. Filed 10/13/2016), Crawfordv. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-02664-RS

2 (N.D. Cal. Filed 5/9/2017), Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 3:17-cv-06124-RS (N.D. Cal.

3 Filed l 0/26/2017).

4

32. Although Uber exercises substantial control over drivers to incentivize them to

5 II drive for Uber and to drive at particular times, Uber openly admits that it is doing nothing to

6 11 incentivize drivers to drive wheelchair accessible Ubers: "[Uber] doesn't treat Drivers who have

7 or want WAVs any differently than it treats other Divers [sic]." BCID v. Uber, SDNY, Case No.

8 1: l 7-cv-06399-NRB, Dkt 35 (Defts" Mot. to Dismiss, December 8, 2017 at 7). Just as it has

9 intentionally flouted regulation and law enforcement in other contexts", Uber has intentionally

10 avoided complying with anti-discrimination laws, including California's, by taking no steps to

11 11 make full and equal access to Uber's transportation service a reality through UberWAV.

12 II

UBER'S DISCRIMINATION RESULTS IN REAL HARM

13

33. Uber's failure to make accessible vehicles available through its service denies

14 people who use wheelchairs access to reliable, on-demand transportation that could drastically

15 improve their lives, enabling them to travel to a wider variety of destinations without having to

16 rely on transportation via expensive taxis, unreliable paratransit, and limited public transit. It

17 would enable them to travel spontaneously, without having to schedule transportation hours or

18 even days in advance. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs and members of the class are excluded from these

19 11 benefits, and suffer real harm as a result.

20

34. People who use wheelchairs face the denigrating experience of being denied a

21 11 basic service that is available to all other paying customers. Even when an UberW AV vehicle is

22 technically available, because so few exist, there are typically frequent and lengthy delays. As

23 such, people who use wheelchairs and use UberWAV must contend with missed appointments,

24 being late for events, and other stress and inconvenience.

25
6 See, e.g., N.Y. Times, How Uber Deceives the Authorities Worldwide,
26 11 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03itechnology/uber-greyball-program-evade-authorities.html, March 3, 2017; The
Recorder, Fonner Uber CLO Salle Yoo Named in Reports of Tool Meant to Evade Foreign Authorities,
2 7 11 https://www.law.com/therecorder/sites/therecorder/2018/0 I /12/fonner-uber-clo-salle-yoo-named-in-reports-of-tool-
meant-to-evade-foreign-authorities/, January 12, 2018; Eric Newcomber, Uber Pushed the Limits of the Law. Now
28 11 Comes the Reckoning, Bloomberg.com, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-l l/uber-pushed-the-
limits-of-the-law-now-comes-the-reckoning, October 11, 2017.
8 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1

35. Due to distances between destinations and the severe limitations of public

2 transportation and paratransit, many persons with disabilities must use private transportation

3 services to travel from one place to another. The private options are severely lacking as well.

4 Wheelchair accessible taxis are rare or nonexistent. Paratransit is extremely unreliable and often

5 11 requires lengthy waits.

6

36. As described below, the lack of access to this new mode of transportation means

7 11 that Plaintiffs may lose employment opportunities or jobs to those with access to more reliable

8 11 transportation, and may experience social isolation and other harms-not least the stigma

9 II associated with not being part of what Uber calls the mainstream "way the world moves."

10 11

JUDITH SMITH

11

37. Plaintiff Judith Smith lives and works in Oakland, California. She uses a motorized

12 11 wheelchair because of mobility disabilities.

13

38. Ms. Smith would and could use Uber if she knew she could count on it for service.

14 She has a smartphone, but she has not downloaded Uber's app. Early in Uber's existence she was

15 excited by the prospect of finding transportation more easily but she quickly learned from friends

16 and colleagues about the lack of accessible vehicles on Uber. Since then, she has watched

17 11 numerous people attempt to call a wheelchair accessible Uber, and none has ever succeeded. As a

18 11 result of such incidents, she has concluded it would be futile to download the app.

19

39. Ms. Smith is the Founder and Artistic Director Emerita of Axis Dance Company, a

20 11 group of contemporary dancers with and without physical disabilities. Several members of the

21 company, including Marc Brew, the group's Artistic Director, use power wheelchairs. Ms. Smith

22 and her colleagues frequently share their frustrations about their transportation options, and

23 specifically about their inability to access the convenience of Uber. For example, Mr. Brew

24 shared the following frustrating experience from his visit to the Bay Area in 2017.

25

40. Mr. Brew attended a dance performance at Berkeley's Zellerbach Hall. After the

26 performance, Mr. Brew needed to get home, but it was after midnight and he had missed the last

27 BART train. There were no accessible vehicles on Uber, and all of his friends who had vehicles

28 11 with wheelchair lifts were either out of town or asleep. Stranded, and with his chair nearly out of

9 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF-- CLASS ACTION

1 power, he ultimately decided to roll to the home of a friend, who was kind enough to put him up

2 for the night.

3

41. There are many situations in which Ms. Smith would use Uber if WAVs were

4 11 available. For example, one evening in 2017, Ms. Smith was in San Francisco's Mission District

5 and wanted to go home to Oakland. The battery on her power wheelchair was running low, and if

6 she could have called an Uber to pick her up, she could have made it home without the stress of

7 11 running out of power. Instead, she rolled to the 16th Street and Mission BART station, but the

8 elevator there was broken. As she rolled to the 24th Street station, the battery on her chair reached

9 critical levels. She managed to get to her train, but by the time she arrived in Oakland, her battery

10 was so depleted that she could not independently roll up the ramp of her home and had to ask a

11 neighbor to assist her.

12

42. If they were accessible to her, Ms. Smith would call Ubers in exactly the same way

13 11 as would someone who does not use a wheelchair accessible vehicle. She would order Ubers to

14 11 and from the airport, when she is out late at night, when she wants to travel to high-density places

15 like San Francisco where parking is limited, or to places that are far from public transportation, in

16 inclement weather, or when health reasons prevent her from driving.

17

43. In these situations, Ms. Smith is left without any alternative transportation and

18 11 therefore must stay at home or suffer arduous transportation delays and other indignities from not

19 11 having access to the same service as Uber users who do not use accessible vehicles.

20 11

JULIE FULLER

21

44. Plaintiff Julie Fuller lives in Oakland, California. She has mobility and vision

22 disabilities and uses a motorized wheelchair. She has a smartphone but has not downloaded the

23 Uber app because she has heard from other wheelchair users that there are no wheelchair

24 accessible Ubers. For example, she has discussed this issue at a weekly support group she attends.

25 The other members of her support group, most of whom use motorized wheelchairs, have shared

26 their frustrations with being unable to access Ubers. She has also volunteered at ILRC, and has

27 discussed the unavailability of wheelchair accessible Ubers with Jessie Lorenz, ILRC's executive

28 director.

10 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1

45. Every Wednesday, Ms. Fuller attends weekly support group sessions in North

2 Berkeley. The drive from her house in Oakland to the support group is approximately 15 minutes.

3 However, in order to get to the sessions, Ms. Fuller leaves an hour early to catch a ride on BART

4 or AC Transit. She leaves the group early so that she does not have to travel home while it is dark,

5 11 as she has impaired vision and feels unsafe when she is on the street in her chair at night.

6

46. Because she feels vulnerable when she is out at night, Ms. Fuller also misses other

7 evening events, such as social gatherings, as well as her neighborhood council, which meets one

8 evening a month at the library a few blocks away from her house. Similarly, when it rains, she

9 stays at home because she does not want to risk waiting outside in the rain for prolonged periods

10 to avoid damage· to her chair. If she were able to rely on door-to-door transportation from Uber,

11 she would be able to attend these events.

12 11

SASCHA BITTNER

13

47. Sascha Bittner lives in San Francisco, California. She uses a motorized wheelchair

14 II because she has mobility disabilities. Ms. Bittner does not have a smartphone but has often been

15 11 out with family and friends who do have the Uber app on their smartphones, and have attempted

16 11 to order a wheelchair accessible vehicle through the app and been unable to do so.

17

48. For example, in January 2017, Ms. Bittner participated in the Women's March

18 with her family in San Francisco. Her family would have used a wheelchair accessible Uber to get

19 to the march, but none was available. Instead, the family engaged in a time consuming ballet of

20 pickups and drop offs to avoid the crowds and limited parking.

21

49. Ms. Bittner is an activist, and campaigns for fair wages for in-home carers and

22 attends events around the Bay Area and the state related to this work. She was appointed by

23 Nancy Pelosi to serve as a delegate for the Democratic party of California. She also participates in

24 workshops at ILRC. She often relies on her stepfather, Bruce Joseph, to drive her in the family's

25 11 accessible van. However just as often, going out to routine events such as regular medical

26 appointments or meetings becomes an all-day ordeal, when she builds in time for delays and

27 disruptions on public transit. Paratransit is routinely hours behind schedule. For example, she was

28 11 hours late to a 9:30 appointment for which she scheduled paratransit pickup two hours early. She

11 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1 11 is often left out of spontaneous social gatherings because she can't simply call an Uber like

2 11 everyone else to get there and come pick her up when it is over.

3

50. The lack of wheelchair accessible Ubers excludes Ms. Bittner from an on-demand

4 door-to-door service that is available to people who do not use wheelchairs, and which would

5 greatly improve Ms. Bittner's ability to live an active life.

6 II

INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCE CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO

7

51. Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco ("ILRC") is a disability

8 rights advocacy and support organization. Its mission is to ensure that people with disabilities are

9 full social and economic partners, both within their families and in a fully accessible community.

10 Uber's discriminatory policies and practices regularly impose economic harms on ILRC, frustrate

11 its efforts to engage in its core advocacy work, and force it to divert resources that it needs to

12 spend on other work. Additionally, many members of its board, staff and constituency are harmed

13 by Uber's discriminatory policies and practices.

14

52. In recent decades, ILRC has worked to ensure that transportation options are

15 available to persons with disabilities. The continued inaccessibility of Uber transportation is thus

16 an issue of concern for ILRC. ILRC has expended time and resources on advocacy work to

17 improve access, including transportation options, for disabled residents of San Francisco. This

18 work has included advocacy and engagement with a wide variety of entities including the San

19 Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency, the Mayor's Office on Disability, and San

20 Francisco Paratransit. For example, ILRC has worked with BART to ensure that all aspects of the

21 system, from paying the fare to riding the train, are accessible to people with disabilities, and has

22 advocated for BART to incorporate accessible design principles in its selection of its new train

23 II cars.

24

53. On the issue of ride-sharing services specifically, ILRC has been monitoring the

25 growth of these services, and engaging in advocacy work to encourage ride-sharing services to

26 provide wheelchair accessible vehicles. ILRC has devoted staff time and resources to collecting

27 11 information about the experiences of people with disabilities using rideshare services, to aid them

28 11 in their advocacy efforts.

12 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1

54. ILRC itself has been injured as a direct result of Uber's failure to provide a service

2 that is accessible to people who use wheelchair accessible vehicles. ILRC's interests are adversely

3 affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit and has done in its

4 organizing and advocacy efforts, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Uber's

5 11 policies and practices. ILRC has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and

6 11 frustration of its mission.

7

55. Many of ILRC's staff have mobility disabilities, use power wheelchairs, and

8 therefore use a wheelchair accessible vehicle if they are traveling in a car. For example, Staff

9 Attorney Jessie Carver uses a motorized wheelchair, and would use Uber to commute to work or

10 to off-site meetings, speaking engagements, and other important work-related events. Without the

11 option of a reliable, convenient on-demand mode of transportation, she is often late, gets stuck in

12 inclement weather, or is vulnerable to outages on public transportation. Each such instance

13 imposes a direct economic harm on the Independent Living Center, in the form of lost employee

14 work-time and productivity.

15

56. Additionally, one or more members of ILRC, including Sascha Bittner, have been

16 11 injured as a direct result of Uber's discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing

17 to sue in their own right. ILRC can bring this action on behalf of its members because the

18 interests at stake are germane to the organization's purpose and only injunctive and declaratory

19 relief are requested, which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.

20 11

COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING

21

57. Community Resources for Independent Living ("CRIL") is a group located in

22 Hayward, California. CRIL supports people with disabilities in southern Alameda County to live

23 independently, advocate for themselves, and access services, programs, activities, resources, and

24 facilities in the community. Uber's discriminatory policies and practices harm CRIL and its

25 11 members, frustrate its efforts to engage in its core advocacy work, and force it to divert resources

26 that it needs to spend on other work. Additionally, many members of its board, staff and 27 constituency are harmed by Uber's discriminatory policies and practices.
28

13 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTlVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1

58. One of the many services CRIL provides to its constituent community is training

2 in how to use public transportation, including BART, AC Transit, paratransit, and rideshare.

3 CRIL employs two travel trainers in its Hayward office. The travel trainers assist people with

4 disabilities to become comfortable using a variety of modes of transportation and learn about the

5 accommodations that are provided to make these modes accessible to people with disabilities. The

6 lack of wheelchair accessible Ubers deprives CRIL' s members of an important transportation

7 11 option. Additionally, to address the lack of wheelchair accessible vehicles in the area, CRIL

8 11 started a van share program, through which it makes available two wheelchair accessible vans via

9 11 Getaround, a peer-to-peer car share portal.

10

59. CRIL also advocates on a variety of issues affecting people with disabilities,

11 including mobility and transportation. For example, it provided feedback to BART's design team

12 to help BART ensure that its new train cars will be fully accessible to people with all kinds of

13 disabilities.

14

60. CRIL itself has been injured as a direct result of Uber's failure to provide a service

15 that is accessible to people who use wheelchair accessible vehicles. CRIL's interests are adversely

16 affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit and has done in its

17 organizing and advocacy efforts, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Uber's

18 policies and practices. CRIL has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and

19 11 frustration of its mission.

20

61. Many of CRIL's staff, constituency, and board have mobility disabilities, use

21 11 power wheelchairs, and therefore use a wheelchair accessible vehicle if they are traveling in a car.

22 For example, board member Chris Finn uses a motorized wheelchair. He has not downloaded

23 Uber's app, but would do so ifhe knew he could count on Uber to provide him with

24 transportation to his appointments, including events at CRIL. Currently he relies on getting rides

25 from friends, and on BART, AC Transit, and paratransit to get around, but using these modes of

26 transportation is limiting. Taking paratransit is often an all-day event because of severe delays.

27 Additionally, when the weather is bad, if he does not have transportation already arranged Mr.

28 Finn must sometimes stay at home to avoid damage to his power wheelchair, which means having

14 COMPLAINT FOR fNJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF·· CLASS ACTION

1 11 to miss events, including his duties as a board member of CRIL. Having access to Uber's on-

2 demand transportation would make a variety of activities more accessible to Mr. Finn, including

3 job opportunities, social gatherings, and events, would save him a huge amount of time going

4 about his daily routine, and enable him to get around more freely and spontaneously.

5

62. Additionally, Mr. Finn has been injured as a direct result of Uber's discriminatory

6 policies and practices and would have standing to sue in his own right, as would other members

7 of _CRIL. CRIL can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are

8 germane to the organization's purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested,

9 which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.

10 II

UBER CONTROLS THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IT HAS CREATED

11

63. Uber has created a revolutionary new mode of on-demand transportation that has

12 changed the way millions of Americans get around- so much so that the word "Uber" has

13 become synonymous with convenient, reliable, on-demand transportation. Sometimes Uber

14 11 distances itself from the fundamental role it has played in creating this system by describing itself

15 11 as merely a broker or middleman, facilitating connections between drivers and riders which might

16 II happen anyway. Nothing could be further from the truth. Uber has created and controls its

1 7 11 transportation system in every material respect.

18 11

UBER CONTROLS THE DRIVERS AND VEIDCLES

19

64. Uber has created an on-demand transportation service which enables a rider to

20 11 order a car from anywhere in most urban areas and reliably be picked up within minutes and

21 11 taken to a specific destination, without having to exchange cash. Uber has carefully created this

22 11 service by recruiting and retaining a network of drivers who enter into contracts with Uber

23 II agreeing to provide rides to Uber's customers under terms and conditions determined by Uber.

24

65. Individuals who wish to drive for Uber must undergo a driving record check,

25 11 background check, present their driver's license, vehicle registration, and driver's insurance. Uber

26 sets standards for which makes, models, and age of vehicle can be driven in the Uber network.

27 These standards are detailed - but nowhere do they mention wheelchair accessible vehicles.

28 Uber-authorized vehicles include a number of vans. Models must be at least 2002 or later, and in

15 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1 many cases Uber requires much more recent models. See Uber, Vehicle Requirements San

2 Francisco Bay Area, https://www.uber.com/drive/san-francisco/vehicle-requirements. Uber also

3 11 sets standards for which makes, models, and age of vehicle can be driven for each class of Uber

4 II vehicle, such as UberSUV, UberXL, and UberBLACK.

5

66. Uber also makes vehicles available to drivers through partnerships with

6 11 dealerships that offer rental and lease-to-own options to assist its drivers in obtaining vehicles

7 11 with which to provide Uber transportation services. See Uber, Vehicle Requirements, San

8 II Francisco Bay Area, https://www.uber.com/drive/san-francisco/vehicle-requirements/ ("And if

9 II you don't have a car, we can help you get one.").

10

67. Uber even exercises control over the engineering and manufacture of vehicles for

11 11 its service. Uber touts its "Advanced Technology Group," a team that includes hardware and

12 product design engineers. Its goals include "transforming the way the world moves" and

13 "developing long-term technologies that advance Uber's mission of bringing safe, reliable

14 II transportation to everyone, everywhere." This work includes self-driving cars and trucks, but not

15 11 wheelchair-accessible vehicles. See Uber, Advanced Technologies Group,

16 II https://www.uber.com/info/atg/.

17

68. Through its driver contract, Uber dictates whether, when, where, and how

18 11 frequently Drivers choose to offer rides in Uber vehicles. Uber exercises exclusive control over

19 termination of Uber drivers, and routinely terminates drivers for several reasons, including for

20 poor ratings from customers or discriminatorily refusing to provide service to customers.

21

69. Uber controls which trip requests it transmits to each of its drivers.

22

70. Uber requires that its drivers meet or exceed the estimated time-of-arrival that

23 11 Uber generates and provides to each customer.

24

71. Uber limits drivers to shifts of no more than 12 hours, preventing drivers who have

25 11 driven for long stints from using the app for six hours to prevent dangerous driver fatigue. 7

26

27

28 11 'Uber.com, "Another Step to Prevent Drowsy Driving," https://www.uber.com/newsroom/drowsydriving/, February
12, 2018.
16 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1

72. Uber requires that Uber drivers refrain from smoking while providing Uber

2 11 services.

3

73. Uber prohibits its drivers from discriminating against people based on race,

4 11 religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, sex, marital status, gender identity, age or

5 11 any other characteristic protected under applicable federal or state law.

6

74. In addition, Uber instructs Uber drivers that the share of trip requests that they

7 11 accept through Uber's app should be consistently high, and that Uber drivers may not accept

8 11 street hails from potential passengers. ·

9

75. Uber controls the safety and quality of the service the drivers provide by closely

10 11 monitoring its drivers. It issues training and directives concerning other requirements to Uber

11 11 drivers.

12

76. Uber records many details about the demand-responsive transportation services

13 that its drivers provide, including for each trip: (1) the pickup location, (2) the time of pickup, (3)

14 the drop off location, (4) the time of drop off, (5) the distance traveled, (6) the trip route, (7) the

15 trip duration, and (8) the customer's identity. Uber employees who supervise drivers have easy

16 access to this data.

17

77. Uber monitors its Uber drivers' performance by asking customers for written

18 feedback, including a driver "rating" of between I and 5, via the app, after every ride that a driver

19 provides, and Uber routinely follows up with customers who express dissatisfaction. Uber

20 regularly terminates or suspends Uber drivers whose average customer rating falls below a certain

21 11 threshold.

22

78. In addition, Uber maintains general commercial liability insurance to cover claims

23 11 concerning incidents that occur while drivers are providing Uber transportation services.

24

79. Uber tightly controls payment for its Uber transportation services.

25

80. Uber controls the fare charged for each trip through an algorithm which takes

26 account of the distance traveled and duration of the trip, along with the intensity of demand for

27 rides at the time of the ride request.
28

17 COMPLAJNT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1

81. Uber controls the supply of drivers by encouraging them to work at particular

2 11 times (by increasing fares when there is increased demand), by offering them financial rewards

3 for accumulating a large number of trips, and by providing them with information about where

4 they are likely to get more trips or preferential fares. Uber exerts control over how many vehicles

5 11 provide its service at a given time through carefully calibrated adjustments in its service's

6 II financial incentives. For example, Uber's "surge" pricing imposes additional charges during

7 11 high-demand times to "make sure those who need a ride can get one." See Uber Help, What is

8 11 surge?, https://help.uber.com/h/e93 75d5e-9 l 7b-4bc5-8 l 42-23b89a440eec.

9 11

UBER CONTROLS WHO CAN RIDE IN AN UBER AND HOW

10

82. In addition to carefully controlling the drivers, Uber also controls who may use

11 11 Uber's transportation service. In order to use Uber, customers must download Uber's app and

12 11 create an account, which requires them to agree to Uber' s terms of service. The customer can then

13 11 order a ride for themselves or someone else. The entire ride is mediated by Uber from start to

14 finish. A rider could request an Uber, travel to their destination, and pay for it, all without ever

15 speaking to the driver.

16

83. To call an Uber, the customer opens the Uber app, selects which class of vehicle

17 they want and then submits a request to Uber for a vehicle through the app, either for their own

18 use or for other passengers.

19

84. Uber then identifies a close, available Uber vehicle and then notifies the requester

20 11 either by text message or the Uber app that a driver has been assigned. The notification includes

21 the driver's name, customer rating, phone number, vehicle license plate number, make and model

22 of the vehicle, and the driver's estimated time of arrival. If the customer submitted a desired trip

23 destination, then Uber will provide a fare estimate. The customer can then track the location of

24 the Uber as the driver navigates to the customer's identified pick-up address. The driver and

25 customer can communicate with each other through Uber's app.

26

85. Once the Uber arrives, the Uber app notifies the customer, and they and any other

27 associated passengers may then board the vehicle. The driver then begins the trip in the Uber

28 software app and proceeds to the desired destination. If the requesting customer submitted the

18 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

i

1 11 destination address, the app will supply the driver with tum-by-tum directions to the desired

2 11 destination

3

86. When the Uber arrives at the desired destination, the driver ends the trip in the

4 Uber's app. Uber then charges the customer's credit card for the trip fare. No cash is exchanged.

5 Uber allows the rider and the driver to provide ratings of each other in the app after the ride has

6 concluded.

7

87. Fares for Uber's transportation services are based on the duration and distance of

8 11 each trip and other factors such as demand at the time and place of the ride, as determined by

9 11 Uber' s algorithms. Uber keeps a percentage of each fare.

10

88. Uber compensates its Uber drivers based on the duration and distance of the trips

11 that they provide to customers. Payments are not transferred directly from customers to drivers;

12 rather, Uber collects and holds customer payments, deducts fees, and then later transfers money to

13 drivers. Customers who dispute the fare for a particular trip must contact Uber customer service

14 representatives to request an adjustment to their fares.

15

89. Uber closely monitors and controls interactions between Uber drivers and

16 11 customers.

17

90. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Uber purports to offer the full range of classes of

18 Uber transportation service to the public. Customers can order an Uber at any time of day and in

19 any part of the Bay Area, selecting from a wide range of options including luxury vehicles,

20 standard vehicles, large vehicles, or carpools, which enable them to ride with strangers for a

21 reduced fare. Although Uber advertises UberWAV (Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle) in the Bay

22 Area, Defendants have chosen not to make Wheelchair Accessible Ubers available.

23

UBER INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PEOPLE WHO NEED

24

WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE UBERS.

25

91. Uber provides a valuable transportation alternative to millions of Bay Area

26 residents, allowing people to more easily travel to work, social events, community engagements,

27 appointments, and other destinations, yet Uber excludes people with mobility disabilities from

28 these same benefits of its convenient transportation.

19 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1

92. Uber could end its discrimination against people who use wheelchair accessible

2 vehicles if it chose to do so. In fact it has already begun providing wheelchair accessible Ubers in

3 several major cities. For example, in London, Uber began providing wheelchair accessible Ubers 4 11 in 2016 through a service called UberACCESS. 8 It rolled out this service to six more U.K. cities 5 11 the following year. 9

6

93. Closer to home, Uber has made UberWAVs available in Philadelphia, rolling out a

7 II fleet of wheelchair accessible vehicles in June of 2017.10

8

94. However; Uber has taken no steps to provide wheelchair accessible Ubers in a way

9 11 which would make Uber's transportation service fully and equally accessible in the Bay Area.

10

95. Plaintiffs seek no monetary relief (apart from attorneys' fees and costs) in this

11 action. The amount in controversy does not exceed $5,000,000 in the aggregate or $74,999 for

12 any Plaintiff or for any member of the proposed Class.

13

96. Plaintiffs do not here specifically seek an order requiring Uber to purchase

14 II vehicles as a way of putting an end to its discriminatory conduct. Given Uber's extensive control

15 11 over the operation of the drivers, including through its fare structure, there are many ways Uber

16 11 can provide relief.

17 11

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

18 11

Discrimination Prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act

19 11

(California Civil Code §§ 51-52)

20

97. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding

21 11 and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

22

98. The Unruh Civil Rights Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities

23 11 are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services in all

24
8 Uber.com, "Introducing uberWAV: transportation for everyone, everywhere in London,"
25 https://newsroom.uber.com/uk/ldnwav/, May 10, 2016.
9 Uber.com, "Forward-facing, forward thinking: introducing uberACCESS," https://www.uber.com/en-GB/blog/uber-
26 access-2/, March 23, 2017;TheNextWeb.com, "Uber's wheelchair-accessible uberACCESS service launches in four
new UK markets," https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/07/14/ubers-wheelchair-accessible-uberaccess-service-
27 launches-four-new-uk-markets/, July 14, 2017.
10 Philly.com, "Uber and Lyft's wheelchair access grows, with room to improve,"
28 http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/ubers-wheelchair-accessibility-grows-with-room-for-
improvement-20170706.html, July 6, 2017.
20
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

I 11 business establishments of any kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the state of California.

2 II Cal. Civ. Code§ 5l(b).

3

99. Plaintiffs and all members of the class are persons with "disabilities" entitled to

4 11 protection under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

5

100. Members of Plaintiff ILRC, including Plaintiff Julie Fuller, and members of

6 Plaintiff CRIL, including Chris Finn, are aware of Defendant's unlawful actions, and their

7 knowledge of this discrimination has deterred them from using Uber's transportation service.

8 Moreover, many members of Plaintiffs ILRC and CRIL, and other wheelchair users, including

9 Plaintiff Sascha Bittner, have been and continue to be denied access to Uber's transportation

10 11 service on multiple occasions when a friend or colleague has attempted to order an Uber ride for

11 11 them and found there are no wheelchair accessible Ubers available.

12

101. Defendants, and each of them, provide transportation services to the general public

13 in California, are business establishments within the jurisdiction of the state of California, and as

14 such are obligated to comply with the provisions of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act,

15 11 California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.

16

102. Defendants, and each of them, have failed and refused to provide Plaintiffs with

17 11 full and equal access to and enjoyment of the benefits of their goods, services, facilities, benefits,

18 II advantages, and accommodations, and have done so with intent and by reason of Plaintiffs'

19 II disabilities. For example, Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally failed or refused to

20 11 make wheelchair accessible vehicles reliably available through their service on a basis which

21 would make Defendants' service fully and equally accessible to people with disabilities who use

22 wheelchair accessible vehicles.

23

103. In addition, Defendants, and each of them, are violating California Civil Code§§

24 51, et seq. in that they are violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et

25 seq.) See Cal. Civ. Code §51(£). Defendants, and each of them, are private entities operating a

26 place of public accommodation and/or providing specified public transportation services.

27 Defendants, and each of them, discriminate against Plaintiffs and members of the putative class

28 11 by denying them full and equal enjoyment of Uber's goods, services, facilities, privileges,

21 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1 11 advantages, and/or accommodations. Defendants, and each of them, have failed to make

2 11 reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, or procedures in order to afford full and

3 11 equal access to their service to Plaintiffs and members of the putative class.

4

104. Therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief remedying the

5 discrimination pursuant to California Civil Code § 52. Unless the Court issues injunctive and

6 declaratory relief to halt defendants' unlawful practices, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer

7 11 irreparable harm.

8

105. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

9

106. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

10

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

11

Discrimination Prohibited by the California Disabled Persons Act

12

{California Civil Code §§ 54-55)

13

107. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing and subsequent allegations as

14 11 though fully set forth herein.

15

108. California Civil Code §§ 54-55 (the "Disabled Persons Act") guarantees, inter

16 11 alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the

17 11 general public receive, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of all "common

18 11 carriers," "motor vehicles," "any other public conveyances or modes of transportation (whether

19 11 private, public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided), "places of public

20 II accommodation" and "other places to which the general public is invited" within the jurisdiction

21 II of California. Cal. Civ. Code §54.l(a)(l).

22

109. Plaintiffs and all members of the proposed Class are "individuals with disabilities"

23 11 who are entitled to protection under the Disabled Persons Act, and are aggrieved or potentially

24 II aggrieved by violations of the Disabled Persons Act.

25

110. Members of Plaintiff ILRC, including Plaintiffs Julie Fuller and Sascha Bittner,

26 and members of Plaintiff CRIL, including Chris Finn, are aware of Defendants' unlawful actions,

27 and their knowledge of this discrimination has deterred them from using Uber's transportation

28 service. Moreover, many members of Plaintiffs ILRC and CRIL, and other wheelchair users,

22
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

1 II including Plaintiff Sascha Bittner, have been and continue to be denied access to Uber's

2 11 transportation service on multiple occasions when a friend or colleague has attempted to order an

3 11 Uber ride for them and found there are no wheelchair accessible Ubers available.

4

111. Defendants, and each of them, provide services, advantages, accommodations and

5 11 privileges to the general public.

6

112. Defendants, and each of them, provide transportation services to the general public

7 via common carriers, motor vehicles, a mode of transportation (whether private, public,

8 franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise), and/or are places of public accommodation or
9 II other places to which the general public is invited under California Civil Code §54. l (a)(l).

10

113. Defendants, and each of them, are violating the rights of Plaintiffs to full and equal

11 11 access to common carriers, motor vehicles, places of public accommodation, or other places to

12 11 which the general public is invited under California Civil Code §§54-54.3 by denying individuals

13 11 with mobility disabilities access to its transportation services.

14

114. In addition, Defendants, and each of them, are violating California Civil Code§§

15 54-54.3 in that they are violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et

16 seq.) See Cal. Civ. Code §54.l(d). Defendants, and each of them, are private entities operating a

17 place of public accommodation and/or providing specified public transportation services.

18 Defendants, and each of them, discriminate against Plaintiffs and members of the putative class

19 by denying them full and equal enjoyment of Uber's goods, services, facilities, privileges,

20 advantages, or accommodations. Defendants, and each of them, have failed to make reasonable

21 modifications to their policies, practices, or procedures in order to afford full and equal access to

22 their service to Plaintiffs and members of the putative class.

23

115. Plaintiffs thus seek declaratory relief based on Defendants' violation of Plaintiffs'

24 II rights under California Civil Code§§ 54-54.3.

25

116. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under California Civil Code§ 55.

26

117. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses under Civil

27 II Code§§ 54.3 and 55.

28 11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the relief set forth below.

23 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF-- CLASS ACTION

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief as follows:

3

1. For an order certifying this case as a class action, and appointing Plaintiffs as the

4 II representatives of the Class and their counsel as Class Counsel;

5

2. For an order finding and declaring that the acts and practices of Uber as set forth

6 11 herein are unlawful and unfair;

7

3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper to ensure

8 11 that individuals who use wheelchairs, including Plaintiffs, are able to use Uber's service on a

9 11 basis that is full and equal to that which is available to other members of the general public; and

10

4. For an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in the filing and

11 11 prosecution of this action.

12

Dated: February 27, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

13

14

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

15

CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP

16

17

~~

By:

_

18

Sidney Wolinsky

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19

20

INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCE

CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO

21

22

23

By: -Jes--s-i:-e ;L-~ orenz~ , Exec~ utive~ Direccttoorr

24

COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOR

25

INDEPENDENT LIVING

26

27

By:_ Ron~ Halo~ g, Ex~ ecutiv~ e Dire~ ctor -

28

24 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF-- CLASS ACTION

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief as follows:

3

I. For an order certifying this case as a class action, and appointing Plaintiffs as the

4 II representatives of the Class and their counsel as Class Counsel;

5

2. For an order finding and declaring that the acts and practices of Uber as set forth

6 11 herein are unlawful and unfair;

7

3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper to ensure

8 that individuals who use wheelchairs, including Plaintiffs, are able to use Uber's service on a

9 basis that is full and equal to that which is available to other members of the general public; and

lO

4. For an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in the filing and

11 11 prosecution of this action.

12

Dated: February 27, 2018

13

Respectfully submitted,

14

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

15

CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP

16

17

By:

_

18

Sidney Wolinsky

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19

20

INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCE

CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO 21

t'~

22 By:~~

23

Jessie Lorenz, Executive Director

24 COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOR

25

INDEPENDENT LIVING

26

27

By:

Ron Halog, Executive Director 28

24 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELlEF •• CLASS ACTION

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief as follows:

3

1. For an order certifying this case as a class action, and appointing Plaintiffs as the

4 11 representatives of the Class and their counsel as Class Counsel;

5

2. For an order finding and declaring that the acts and practices of Uber as set forth

6 II herein are unlawful and unfair;

7

3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper to ensure

8 that individuals who use wheelchairs, including Plaintiffs, are able to use Uber's service on a

9 basis that is full and equal to that which is available to other members of the general public; and

IO

4. For an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in the filing and

11 11 prosecution of this action.

12

Dated: February 27, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

13

14

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

15

CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP

16

17

By:-----------

18

Sidney Wolinsky Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19

20

INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCE

CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO

21

22

23

By: --J=-e-s-s--i;-e-:-;L-o~ renz,~ Exec. utive~ Direc;-t;orr

24

COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOR

25

INDEPENDENT LIVING

26

27

28

24 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

JUDITH SMITH
2

3 4

5

6

JULIE FULLER

7

8

9

10

SASCHA BITTNER

11

12

13

14
15 16

17

18

19
20

21

22 23

24

25

26 27

28

25
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -- CLASS ACTION

JUDITH SMITH 2

3

4

5 JULIE FULLER
6

7

8

/"C'

9

IO

SASCHA BITTNER

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
25 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTrYE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF --CLASS ACTION

~,.. -~"······

-

•
2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 l I 12 13 1-1 15 16
n rs
19 ll ,,.
20 21 22
'~)-''
24 25 26
.,.,.,
2S

J~'Llb. Fl.,LU:.R

-,

ATIORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATIORNEY 1Name)State Bar number, and address):

Sid Wolinksy (CA BAR NO. 33716 Melissa Riess (CA BAR NO 295959)

Disability Rights Advocates

·

B20e0rk1eCleeyn,teCraSlitfroerenti1aF, o9u4r7th04Floor

TELEPHONE NO.: 510-665-8644

FAX NO.: 5 lQ-665-8716

moRNEYFOR/NameJ Judith Smith, Julie Fuller, Sascha Bittner, ILRCSF, CRIL

I \11\\1 \\I\ 11\\11\\\11\\1\ \ I\\ \II\\ \Ill\ 11111111 20661778
FILED
ALAMEDA COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Alameda STREET ADDREss: 1225 Fallon Street
MAILING ADDRESS:
c1TY AND z1P coos Oakland, California, 94612 BRANCH NAME: Rene C. Davidson

FEBl.12018

CASE NAME:
Smith et al. v. Uber Technologies et al.

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

[l] Unlimited D Limited

(Amount

(Amount

Complex Case Designation

D

D ·

Counter

Jomder

CASE NUMBER

5 O fAi

[

- ,

demanded

demanded is

Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGE:

exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less)

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) .. .._ DEPT

____,

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).

1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Auto Tort D Auto (22)

Contract

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation

D Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)

D Uninsured motorist (46)

D Rule 3.740 collections (09)

D Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)

Other Pl/PD/WO (Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort

DD Other collections (09) Insurance coverage (18)

D Construction defect (10) D Mass tort (40)

D Asbestos (04)

D Other contract (37)

D Product liability (24)

Real Property

D Medical malpractice (45)

D Eminent domain/Inverse

D Other Pl/PD/WO (23) Non-Pl/PD/WO (Other) Tort

condemnation (14)
D Wrongful eviction (33)

D Business tort/unfair business practice (07) D Other real property (26)

[Z] Civil rights (08)
D Defamation (13)
D Fraud (16)
D Intellectual property (19)
D Professional negligence (25) D Other non-Pl/PD/WO tort (35)

Unlawful Detainer D Commercial (31)
D Residential (32) D Drugs(38)
Judicial Review D Asset forfeiture (05)

Employment
D Wrongful termination (36)
D Other employment (15)

D Petition re: arbitration award (11) D Writ of mandate (02)
D Other judicial review (39)

D Securities litigation (28) D Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
D Insurance coverage daims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
D Enforcement of judgment (20)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
0 RIC0(27)
D Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
D Partnership and corporate go~mance (21) D Other petition (not specified above) (43)

[l] D 2. This case

is

is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the

factors requiring exceptional judicial management:

See Attachment A.

a. D Large number of separately represented parties d. [l] Large number of witnesses

0 b.

Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve

in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court

c. [Z] Substantial amount of documentary evidence

f. [Z] Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

[Z] 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.D monetary b. nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief
4. Number of causes of action (specify): Cal Civil Code §51-52; 54-55
5. This case [Z] is D is not a class action suit.
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You m

c. D punitive

Date: 2/26/2018

Melissa Riess

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

NOTICE

• Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small daims cases or cases filed

under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result

in sanctions. • File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.

• If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all

other parties to the action or proceeding.

• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv.
flage 1 of 2

Fenn Adopted tor Mandatory Use
Judicial Council of California
CM-010 (Rev. July 1, 2007]

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

ea1. Rules oteourt. ru1es 2.JO. 3.220. 3.400-3.403. 3.740; Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10
www.courtinfo.ca.gov

Amertcan LegalNet, Inc. www.FonnsWonctlow.com

i

 
 Case: 3:18-cv-6503 As of: 06/07/2020 06:54 PM PDT 1 of 9
RELATE,STAYED
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:18−cv−06503−RS

Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al Assigned to: Judge Richard Seeborg Relate Case Case: 3:17−cv−02664−RS Cause: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/24/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 American with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco

represented by Mark Andrew Chavez Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 415−632−1900 Fax: 415−632−1901 Email: mark@kbklegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Riess Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: mriess@draglegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nance Felice Becker Chavez & Gertler LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 415−381−5599 Fax: 415−381−5572 Email: nance@chavezgertler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sidney M. Wolinsky Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: general@dralegal.org TERMINATED: 01/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Stuart John Seaborn Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 665−8644 Fax: (510) 665−8511 Email: sseaborn@dralegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:18-cv-6503 As of: 06/07/2020 06:54 PM PDT 2 of 9

Plaintiff Judith Smith
Plaintiff Julie Fuller

Rebecca Catherine Serbin Disability Rights Advocates 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 644−8644 Email: rserbin@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark Andrew Chavez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Riess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nance Felice Becker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sidney M. Wolinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Stuart John Seaborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Catherine Serbin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark Andrew Chavez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Riess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nance Felice Becker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sidney M. Wolinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Stuart John Seaborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:18-cv-6503 As of: 06/07/2020 06:54 PM PDT 3 of 9

Plaintiff Sascha Bittner
Plaintiff Community Resources for Independent Living

Rebecca Catherine Serbin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark Andrew Chavez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Riess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nance Felice Becker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sidney M. Wolinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Stuart John Seaborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Catherine Serbin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark Andrew Chavez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Riess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nance Felice Becker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart John Seaborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Catherine Serbin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

Case: 3:18-cv-6503 As of: 06/07/2020 06:54 PM PDT 4 of 9

Uber Technologies, Inc.
Defendant Rasier, LLC Defendant Rasier−CA, LLC

represented by Kathy Hua Gao Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP 300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 612−2500 Fax: (213) 612−2501 Email: kathy.gao@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne−Marie Estevez Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 415−3330 Fax: (877) 432−9652 Email: aestevez@morganlewis.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Beth Schuster Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 373−6595 Fax: (202) 739−3001 Email: stephanie.schuster@morganlewis.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kathy Hua Gao (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne−Marie Estevez (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Beth Schuster (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kathy Hua Gao (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne−Marie Estevez (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Beth Schuster (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:18-cv-6503 As of: 06/07/2020 06:54 PM PDT 5 of 9

Date Filed 10/24/2018 10/24/2018 10/24/2018
10/24/2018 10/25/2018 11/07/2018 11/07/2018
11/08/2018 11/29/2018 11/29/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971−12790469.). Filed byIndependent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Sascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Judith Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Certification of Interested Entities and Persons)(Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 10/24/2018) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
2 Proposed Summons. (Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 10/24/2018) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 11/7/2018. (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2018) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right of Access under Americans with Disabilities Act. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2018) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
5 Summons Issued as to Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2018) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
6 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Sascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith.. (Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 11/7/2018) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
7 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned.
ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE−NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED.
This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2018) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
8 ORDER, Case reassigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson no longer assigned to the case. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Signed by Executive Committee on 11/8/18. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2018) (Entered: 11/08/2018)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Sascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Judith Smith. Service waived by Uber Technologies, Inc. waiver sent on 10/29/2018, answer due 12/28/2018. (Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 11/29/2018) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Sascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Judith Smith. Service waived by Rasier, LLC waiver sent on 10/29/2018, answer due 12/28/2018. (Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 11/29/2018) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

Case: 3:18-cv-6503 As of: 06/07/2020 06:54 PM PDT 6 of 9

11/29/2018 12/03/2018 12/18/2018 12/21/2018 01/02/2019 01/02/2019 01/02/2019 01/03/2019
01/04/2019 01/04/2019 01/07/2019 01/11/2019 01/11/2019 02/04/2019

11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Sascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Judith Smith. Service waived by Rasier−CA, LLC waiver sent on 10/29/2018, answer due 12/28/2018. (Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 11/29/2018) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathy Hua Gao as to Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc.'s, Rasier, LLC's, And Rasier−CA, LLCs Notice Of Appearance (Gao, Kathy) (Filed on 12/3/2018) Modified on 12/4/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/03/2018)
13 STIPULATION extending Defendants' time to respond to the complaint filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, et al. (Gao, Kathy) (Filed on 12/18/2018) Modified on 12/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2018)
14 ORDER GRANTING 13 Stipulation, filed by Sascha Bittner, Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier−CA, LLC, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Julie Fuller, Judith Smith. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 12/21/18. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
15 ORDER RELATING CASES C 17−cv−2664 RS and C 18−cv−6503 YGR. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/2/19. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2019) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
16 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−12965305.) filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Estevez, Anne−Marie) (Filed on 1/2/2019) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
17 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−12965341.) filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Schuster, Stephanie) (Filed on 1/2/2019) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
18 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Richard Seeborg for all further proceedings. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers no longer assigned to the case. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Signed by Executive Committee on 1/3/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
19 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 16 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Anne Marie Estevez. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2019) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
20 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 17 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Stephanie Schuster. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2019) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
21 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Sidney M. Wolinsky (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Filed on 1/7/2019) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
22 STIPULATION to Amend Complaint to Add Plaintiff filed by Sascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Filed on 1/11/2019) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
23 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed byIndependent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Sascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Judith Smith. (Seaborn, Stuart) (Filed on 1/11/2019) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
24 MOTION to Compel Arbitration filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2019 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 2/19/2019. Replies due by 2/26/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rosemary Barajas, # 2 Proposed Order)(Estevez, Anne−Marie) (Filed on 2/4/2019) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-6503 As of: 06/07/2020 06:54 PM PDT 7 of 9

02/19/2019 02/22/2019 02/22/2019 03/05/2019 03/05/2019 03/06/2019 03/15/2019
04/18/2019 04/22/2019 05/06/2019
05/06/2019 05/23/2019 05/23/2019
06/06/2019

25 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 24 MOTION to Compel Arbitration ) filed bySascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith. (Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
26 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 24 MOTION to Compel Arbitration filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Schuster, Stephanie) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
27 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 26 Stipulation. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
28 REPLY (re 24 MOTION to Compel Arbitration ) filed byRasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Estevez, Anne−Marie) (Filed on 3/5/2019) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
29 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding General Order 56 filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Schuster, Stephanie) (Filed on 3/5/2019) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
30 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 29 Stipulation to continue parties' deadline to meet and confer regarding settlement pursuant to general order 56. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2019) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
31 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing as to 24 MOTION to Compel Arbitration. Motion Hearing previously set for 3/21/2019 has been continued to 5/9/2019 at 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.),(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2019) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
32 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−13272209.) filed by Sascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Serbin, Rebecca) (Filed on 4/18/2019) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
33 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 32 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for attorney Rebecca Catherine Serbin.(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2019) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
34 CLERK'S NOTICE THE MOTION [#24 ] SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON MAY 9, 2019 AT 1:30 P.M. SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7−1(b). ACCORDINGLY, THE MOTION HEARING IS VACATED. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2019) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
35 ORDER DENYING MOTION 24 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO SEEK LIMITED DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2019) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
36 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Sascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Filed on 5/23/2019) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
37 Declaration of Stuart Seaborn in Support of 36 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed bySascha Bittner, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 36 ) (Seaborn, Stuart) (Filed on 5/23/2019) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
38 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 36 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint ) filed byRasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Anne Marie Estevez, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Estevez, Anne−Marie) (Filed on 6/6/2019) (Entered: 06/06/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-6503 As of: 06/07/2020 06:54 PM PDT 8 of 9

06/12/2019
06/12/2019 06/13/2019 06/24/2019 06/24/2019 06/25/2019
07/01/2019
07/03/2019 07/08/2019 07/18/2019

39 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Non−Party Carson Turner filed by Sascha Bittner, Community Resources for Independent Living, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith. Motion Hearing set for 7/18/2019 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 6/26/2019. Replies due by 7/3/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Filed on 6/12/2019) Modified on 6/13/2019 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2019)
40 Declaration of Stuart Seaborn in Support of 39 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Non−Party Carson Turner filed bySascha Bittner, Community Resources for Independent Living, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 39 ) (Seaborn, Stuart) (Filed on 6/12/2019) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
41 REPLY (re 36 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint ) filed bySascha Bittner, Community Resources for Independent Living, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith. (Seaborn, Stuart) (Filed on 6/13/2019) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
42 ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/24/19. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2019) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 36 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Motion Hearing set for 7/18/2019 at 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2019) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
43 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses & Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 6/18/2019 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 7/9/2019. Replies due by 7/16/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Anne Marie Estevez, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6)(Estevez, Anne−Marie) (Filed on 6/25/2019) (Entered: 06/25/2019)
44 RENEWED MOTION to Compel Arbitration filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 7/18/2019 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 7/8/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Anne Marie Estevez, # 2 Exhibit A to Estevez Decl., # 3 Exhibit B to Estevez Decl., # 4 Proposed Order)(Estevez, Anne−Marie) (Filed on 7/1/2019) Modified on 7/9/2019 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/01/2019)
45 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 43 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses & Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Subpoena ) and Reply in support of Motion to Quash Subpoena filed bySascha Bittner, Community Resources for Independent Living, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Stuart Seaborn)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Filed on 7/3/2019) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
46 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 44 MOTION to Compel Arbitration ) filed bySascha Bittner, Community Resources for Independent Living, Julie Fuller, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Judith Smith. (Seaborn, Stuart) (Filed on 7/8/2019) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
47 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard Seeborg: Motion Hearing held on 7/18/2019 re 36 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Sascha Bittner, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Julie Fuller, Judith Smith, 39 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Non−Party Carson Turner filed by Sascha Bittner, Community Resources for Independent Living, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, Julie Fuller, Judith Smith, 44 MOTION to Compel Arbitration filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier−CA, LLC. Motions taken under submission; Court to issue an order. Total Time in Court: 15 minutes. Court Reporter: Kathy Sullivan.

Case: 3:18-cv-6503 As of: 06/07/2020 06:54 PM PDT 9 of 9

07/30/2019

Plaintiff Attorney: Stuart Seaborn. Defendant Attorney: Stephanie Schuster.
(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
48 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DENYING DISCOVERY MOTIONS by Judge Richard Seeborg denying as moot 36 Motion for Leave to File; denying as moot 39 Motion to Quash; denying as moot 43 Motion to Compel; granting 44 Motion to Compel. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2019) (Entered: 07/30/2019)

 
 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 1 of 25

1 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
SIDNEY WOLINSKY (Bar No. 33716) 2 STUART SEABORN (Bar No. 198590)
MELISSA RIESS (Bar No. 295959) 3 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, California 94704-1204 4 Telephone: (510) 665-8644
Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 5 swolinsky@dralegal.org
sseaborn@dralegal.org 6 mriess@dralegal.org

7 CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP MARK A. CHAVEZ (Bar No. 90858)
8 NANCE F. BECKER (Bar No. 99292)
42 Miller Avenue 9 Mill Valley, California 94941
Telephone: (415) 381-5599 10 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
mark@chavezgertler.com 11 nance@chavezgertler.com

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

17

18 INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCE CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, a California
19 non-profit corporation, JUDITH SMITH, an individual, JULIE FULLER, an individual,
20 and SASCHA BITTNER, an individual,

21

Plaintiffs,

Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq.

22 v.

CLASS ACTION

23 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, RASIER, LLC, a Delaware
24 Corporation, and RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware Corporation,
25
Defendants. 26

27

28

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 2 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

1. Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy ongoing discrimination against people with

3 mobility disabilities who want to, but cannot, use the transportation service operated by Uber

4 Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”). Since launching its transportation service in San Francisco in July

5 2010, Uber has experienced explosive growth, has seized an ever-expanding market share from

6 taxi companies and is now a major provider of individual transportation services in the United

7 States. Uber’s success is based on the quality of its service, which provides users with reliable

8 on-demand transportation within minutes in over 600 cities worldwide. Unfortunately, in its

9 rapid growth into a multi-billion-dollar behemoth, Uber has not taken adequate steps to satisfy its

10 legal responsibility to provide the same reliable on-demand transportation service to individuals

11 who use wheelchair accessible vehicles (“WAVs”).

12

2. Uber purports to offer WAVs to users in the Bay Area through its UberWAV

13 button, but the reality is this button only provides riders second-class service – when it provides

14 service at all. Even when the service is available, the average wait time in San Francisco for

15 UberWAV is almost four times longer than for non-wheelchair accessible UberX. In Alameda

16 County, the wait time for a WAV is on average 12 times longer. Unlike all of Uber’s other

17 services, UberWAV does not offer the option of reserving a ride in advance.

18

3. Uber is one of the leading companies in the new “sharing economy.” It provides

19 on-demand rides to individuals through its network of over 2,000,000 drivers globally. The riders

20 pay Uber through Uber’s smart phone application with their credit cards, and Uber splits the

21 payments with its drivers. Uber’s phenomenal success and unparalleled growth pose an

22 existential threat to traditional taxi service, and Uber has invested heavily in what it considers to

23 be transportation technologies of the future, including autonomous vehicles. As a result Uber’s

24 market value has grown to over $70 billion.1

25

4. It appears that the future of on-demand transportation belongs to Uber and that,

26 unless forced to do so by this Court, Uber will exclude disabled individuals from that future. As

27 28 1 NY Times, “Uber and Lyft Charge Toward Potential I.P.O.s Next Year”,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/technology/uber-lyft-ipo.html (Oct. 16, 2018).

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

1

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 3 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 detailed below, Uber’s acts and practices deny individuals who need wheelchair accessible

2 vehicles equal access to the service it provides, and prevent them from obtaining the benefits of

3 its service. Such conduct directly violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42

4 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

5

5. It is fully within Uber’s power to provide reliable and timely accessible service.

6 Uber tightly controls all aspects of how both its drivers and riders use the service, mediating all

7 payments, regulating the types of vehicles the drivers use, and offering financial incentives to

8 ensure that there are enough drivers on the road to meet the demand for rides. Moreover, Uber is

9 already providing widespread wheelchair accessible transportation in London and six other cities

10 around the United Kingdom. Uber could similarly end its discrimination against people in the

11 Bay Area who need wheelchair accessible vehicles if it chose to do so.

12

6. This litigation is intended to halt Uber’s ongoing discrimination against

13 individuals with mobility disabilities. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to redress

14 Uber’s violations of the ADA and California law. Because Defendants’ practices adversely

15 impact hundreds, if not thousands, of disabled individuals, Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify their

16 claims for class treatment and to order relief that will benefit all members of the Class.

17

II. PARTIES

18

7. Plaintiff Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco (“ILRC”) is a

19 disability rights organization in San Francisco, California, that advocates for people with

20 disabilities and supports them in living independent and active lives. ILRC’s board, staff, and the

21 consumers of its services include people with mobility disabilities who have been deterred from

22 downloading and using Uber because of Uber’s failure to provide them with full and equal

23 access to its service. Uber’s discriminatory policies and practices regularly impose economic

24 harms on ILRC, frustrate the organization’s efforts to engage in its core advocacy work, and

25 force it to divert resources that it needs to spend on other work. Plaintiff ILRC sues on behalf of

26 itself, its consumers, board members, and staff, and in furtherance of its mission of ensuring that

27 people with disabilities are fully integrated into the social and economic fabric of their

28 communities.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

2

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 4 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

8. Plaintiff Judith Smith is an individual residing in Alameda County. She uses a

2 motorized wheelchair and would use Uber but for the lack of reliable and timely wheelchair

3 accessible Ubers. Because Ms. Smith has heard about and witnessed the unavailability of the

4 service she has not downloaded Uber’s application because she knows that Uber’s WAV service

5 is frequently unavailable.

6

9. Plaintiff Julie Fuller is an individual residing in Alameda County. She uses a

7 motorized wheelchair and would use Uber but for the lack of reliable and timely wheelchair

8 accessible Ubers. She has learned that WAVs are not available through Uber from other

9 wheelchair users, and people she knows at ILRC. She has not downloaded Uber’s application

10 because she knows that Uber’s WAV service is frequently unavailable.

11

10. Plaintiff Sascha Bittner is an individual residing in San Francisco. She uses a

12 motorized wheelchair and would use Uber but for the lack of reliable and timely wheelchair

13 accessible Ubers. She has witnessed family members attempt to call wheelchair accessible Ubers

14 and knows that they are not reliably available. She would use Uber’s WAV service if she could

15 count on it for reliable door-to-door transportation.

16

11. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”2) is a for-profit corporation that

17 provides on-demand transportation services throughout California, including in Alameda and

18 San Francisco Counties. Uber is registered in Delaware and its principal place of business is San

19 Francisco, California.

20

12. Defendant Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”) is a for-profit corporation registered in

21 Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Rasier is a subsidiary

22 of Uber Technologies, Inc.

23

13. Defendant Rasier-CA, LLC (“Rasier”) is a for-profit corporation registered in

24 Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Rasier-CA, LLC is a

25 subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc.

26

27

28 2 The name “Uber” will be used to refer to all Defendants named in this Complaint.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

3

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 5 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

III. JURISDICTION

2

14. Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the

3 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq. The Court has subject matter

4 jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12188. The Court has

5 jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and to order further relief under 28

6 U.S.C. § 2202.

7

IV. VENUE

8

15. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§

9 1391(b)-(c) because Defendants’ principal place of business is in San Francisco, California, the

10 business practices at issue were conducted throughout California, including in San Francisco

11 County and Alameda County, liability arose in those counties, and events and conduct giving rise

12 to the violations of law asserted herein occurred in those counties. Plaintiffs Judith Smith and

13 Julie Fuller reside in Oakland, California, and Sascha Bittner resides in San Francisco. They

14 have suffered discrimination on the basis of their disabilities and been deterred from taking

15 advantage of the transportation service offered by Uber in Alameda County and San Francisco.

16 Plaintiff ILRC has its principal place of business in San Francisco, and has likewise suffered

17 injury there.

18

V. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

19

16. The appropriate division for this case is the San Francisco Division. Defendants’

20 principal place of business is in San Francisco and a substantial part of the acts or omissions,

21 including the business practices at issue in this case, were developed and implemented in San

22 Francisco.

23

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

24

17. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs bring this action

25 on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. The Class consists of all

26 individuals in San Francisco County and Alameda County who are disabled because of a

27 mobility impairment, utilize wheelchairs and therefore use accessible transportation, and who

28 have been and continue to be deterred from using Uber’s transportation service due to Uber’s

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

4

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 6 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 discriminatory acts and practices. Excluded from the Class is any individual who has previously

2 utilized Uber and/or has downloaded the Uber application, and Uber’s officers and employees.

3

18. Plaintiffs are unable to state the precise number of potential members of the

4 proposed Class. The Class numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands, and members of the Class

5 are sufficiently numerous and geographically diverse that joinder of all members is

6 impracticable.

7

19. There is a well-defined community of interest among the members of the

8 proposed Class in that there are questions of law and fact common to all of their claims. Those

9 common issues include, but are not limited to: whether Uber provides the transportation services

10 that Plaintiffs can use; and whether Uber has violated Title III of the ADA by failing to provide

11 equal access to its service to people who use wheelchairs and need WAVs.

12

20. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of, and not antagonistic to, the claims of all other

13 members of the Class because Uber conducted and continues to conduct its business in a manner

14 which caused, continues to cause, and will in the future cause all Class members to suffer the

15 same or similar injury. Plaintiffs, by advancing their claims, will also advance the claims of all

16 other similarly-situated individuals.

17

21. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

18 absent Class members. There are no material conflicts between Plaintiffs’ claims and those of

19 absent Class members that would make class certification inappropriate. Plaintiffs’ counsel are

20 experienced in disability rights and class action litigation, and will vigorously assert Plaintiffs’

21 claims and the claims of all Class members.

22

22. A class action is superior to other potential methods for achieving a fair and

23 efficient adjudication of this controversy. Whatever difficulties may exist in the management of

24 this case as a class action will be greatly outweighed by the benefits of the class action

25 procedure, including but not limited to providing Class members with a method for the redress

26 and prevention of their injuries and claims that could not, given the complexity of the issues and

27 the nature of the requested relief, be pursued in individual litigation. Further, the prosecution of

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

5

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 7 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 separate actions by the individual Class members, even if possible, would create a risk of

2 inconsistent or varying adjudications and incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendant.

3

VII. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

4

23. Uber provides transportation services to members of the general public, including

5 in San Francisco County and Alameda County.

6

24. Uber is not a broker or a middleman merely facilitating a transaction through a

7 smart phone application. Instead, it provides transportation to its customers by recruiting and

8 retaining a network of drivers who contractually agree to provide rides to Uber’s customers in

9 accordance with terms and conditions specified by Uber. Similarly, Uber’s customers must enter

10 into contracts with Uber to utilize its service on terms and conditions specified by Uber. In all

11 material respects, including the financial terms, the transactions between the drivers and the

12 customers are dictated, mediated, and controlled by Uber. There are no negotiations between

13 Uber’s drivers and its customers. And Uber takes the lion’s share of the revenues generated in

14 the transactions.

15

25. Uber provides different levels of transportation service around the country. In San

16 Francisco and Alameda Counties, the company offers UberX, its basic rideshare option, Uber

17 POOL, a carpooling service, Uber Select and Uber Black, premium transportation services, and

18 UberXL and UberSUV, services limited to larger vehicles. In addition, it purports to offer Uber

19 Assist, a service in which the drivers have self-certified as being willing to assist riders with

20 mobility disabilities, and UberWAV, a car service option offering wheelchair accessible

21 vehicles.

22

26. Uber has created a genuinely new mode of transportation, generating both the

23 demand for rides and the supply of drivers by incentivizing both the riders and the drivers to

24 participate in the service. Without Uber, this new mode of transportation would not exist.

25

27. Moreover, Uber perceives itself as creating a new transportation service which

26 transcends the technology. Uber urges commuters to consider it a “daily transportation option” or

27 one that complements their use of other modes of transportation (“While public transportation is

28 still very much a necessity, research has found that Uber acts as an important complement for

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

6

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 8 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 commuters.”3) Uber has even compared itself to a utility (“Today we aspire to make

2 transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere and for everyone”4) and touted the ability

3 of its transportation service to tackle difficult public policy issues such as “congestion, pollution

4 and parking by getting more people into fewer cars.”5 In Uber’s own words: “Our work doesn’t

5 end with transporting people.”6 In the words of the Northern District of California: “Uber does

6 not simply sell software; it sells rides.” O’Connor v. Uber Techs. Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1141

7 (N.D Cal. 2015).

8

A. Uber Discriminates Against Individuals With Mobility Disabilities By Failing

To Provide Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles

9

28. Uber purports to offer access to wheelchair accessible vehicles to users in the Bay

10

Area. However, although the app includes an UberWAV button, the reality is that this button

11

only provides riders second-class service – when it provides service at all.

12

29. When a wheelchair accessible Uber is available in San Francisco, the wait times

13

for these vehicles are on average almost four times longer than for non-wheelchair accessible

14

UberX. In Alameda County, the wait time for a WAV is on average 12 times longer. This is not

15

an effective or viable component of Uber’s transportation system.

16

30. Plaintiffs tested a number of central locations around the Bay Area daily in

17

September 2018 and October 2018. In Alameda County, a total of 60 tests during business hours

18

reflected an average estimated wait time for an UberWAV of 29.7 minutes. In comparison, the

19

average estimated wait times for an UberX in the same locations was 2.4 minutes. In other

20

words, on average an UberWAV rider is told they will have to wait 12.4 times longer than an

21

UberX rider. Some estimated wait times listed for UberWAVs were as long as 51 minutes. In

22

23 3 Uber.com, How Uber Can Be a Daily Transit Option, https://www.uber.com/newsroom/how-
24 uber-can-be-a-daily-transportation-option/, October 5, 2016.
25 4 Uber.com, Celebrating Cities: A New Look and Feel for Uber, https://www.uber.com/newsroom/celebrating-cities-a-new-look-and-feel-for-uber-7/, February 3,
26 2016. 5 Travis Kalanick, Uber’s Plan to Get More People Into Fewer Cars,
27 https://www.ted.com/talks/travis_kalanick_uber_s_plan_to_get_more_people_into_fewer_cars, February 2016.
28 6 Uber.com, Advanced Technology Group, https://www.uber.com/info/atg/

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

7

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 9 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 only one test out of 60 did the estimated wait time for an UberWAV dip into the single digits (8

2 minutes). In one instance, the app reflected that no WAVs were available. In San Francisco, the

3 average estimated wait time for an UberWAV was 11.5 minutes, almost four times longer than

4 the average for an UberX. UberWAV estimated wait times could reach as high as 21 minutes,

5 whereas for an UberX at the same location, the estimated wait was 2 minutes.

6

31. The information above was based on testing of estimated wait times at central

7 locations during business hours in the morning and the evening. Anecdotal reports of UberWAV

8 use reflect that the service may be even more inadequate than the above information suggests.

9 For example, an UberWAV user reported an occasion when she used UberWAV for the journey

10 to an appointment. When she tried to request an UberWAV for the return journey, she received a

11 message that no cars were available for two hours before she obtained confirmation that an

12 UberWAV could take her. Once the ride was finally confirmed, she had to wait an additional 25

13 minutes for the vehicle to arrive. This rider reported that about 50 percent of her requests for a

14 ride using Uber’s app yield a message that no cars are available. She has been reluctant to use

15 UberWAV because of the risk of being stranded and unable to get transportation home. To make

16 this risk worse, UberWAV does not offer the possibility of booking a vehicle in advance –

17 although the option of advanced reservations is available for all of Uber’s other services.

18

32. Uber riders who use wheelchair accessible vehicles are also denied access to all

19 but one of Uber’s transportation classes. Riders who use wheelchairs requiring lifts or ramps can

20 only travel in an UberWAV. They cannot use Uber’s carpool service UberPOOL, its large

21 vehicle services UberXL and UberSUV, and its deluxe vehicle services such as UberBLACK or

22 UberSelect.

23

33. Uber has been sued in cities around the United States for its violation of disability

24 laws by failing to provide wheelchair-accessible service, yet has continued its policy of denying

25 that service. See, e.g., Equal Rights Center v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 17-cv-01272 (D.D.C.

26 filed 6/28/2017), Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-cv-

27 09690 (N.D. Ill. Filed 10/13/2016), Crawford v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-02664-RS

28 (N.D. Cal. Filed 5/9/2017), Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-06124-RS (N.D.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

8

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 10 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Cal. Filed 10/26/2017), Ramos v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. SA-14-CA-502-XR, 2015 WL 758087

2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2015).

3

34. Although Uber exercises substantial control over drivers to incentivize them to

4 drive for Uber and to drive at particular times, there is no indication that Uber is doing anything

5 to incentivize drivers to drive wheelchair accessible Ubers. It has previously admitted that it is

6 doing nothing: “[Uber] doesn’t treat Drivers who have or want WAVs any differently than it

7 treats other Divers [sic].” BCID v. Uber, SDNY, Case No. 1:17-cv-06399-NRB, Dkt 35 (Defts’

8 Mot. to Dismiss, December 8, 2017 at 7). Just as it has intentionally flouted regulation and law

9 enforcement in other contexts7, Uber has intentionally avoided complying with anti-

10 discrimination laws by failing to make full and equal access to Uber’s transportation service a

11 reality through UberWAV.

12

B. Uber’s Discrimination Results In Real Harm

13

35. Uber’s failure to make accessible vehicles reliably available through its service

14 denies people who use wheelchairs access to on-demand transportation that could drastically

15 improve their lives, enabling them to travel to a wider variety of destinations without having to

16 rely on transportation via expensive taxis, unreliable paratransit, and limited public transit. It

17 would enable them to travel spontaneously, without having to schedule transportation hours or

18 even days in advance. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs and members of the class are excluded from these

19 benefits, and suffer real harm as a result.

20

36. People who use wheelchairs face the denigrating experience of being denied a

21 basic service that is available to all other paying customers. Even when an UberWAV vehicle is

22 technically available, because so few exist, there are typically frequent and lengthy delays.

23

24 7 See, e.g., N.Y. Times, How Uber Deceives the Authorities Worldwide,
25 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-program-evade-authorities.html, March 3, 2017; The Recorder, Former Uber CLO Salle Yoo Named in Reports of Tool Meant to
26 Evade Foreign Authorities, https://www.law.com/therecorder/sites/therecorder/2018/01/12/former-uber-clo-salle-yoo-
27 named-in-reports-of-tool-meant-to-evade-foreign-authorities/, January 12, 2018; Eric Newcomber, Uber Pushed the Limits of the Law. Now Comes the Reckoning, Bloomberg.com,
28 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-11/uber-pushed-the-limits-of-the-law-nowcomes-the-reckoning, October 11, 2017.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

9

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 11 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 People who use wheelchairs and use UberWAV must contend with missed appointments, being

2 late for events, and the risk of being stranded far from other transportation options because they

3 are unable to secure an UberWAV for their return journeys.

4

37. Due to distances between destinations in the Bay Area and the severe limitations

5 of public transportation and paratransit, many people with disabilities must use private

6 transportation services to travel from one place to another. The private options are severely

7 lacking as well. Wheelchair accessible taxis are rare or nonexistent. Paratransit is extremely

8 unreliable and often requires lengthy waits.

9

38. As described below, the lack of effective access to this new mode of

10 transportation means that Plaintiffs may lose employment opportunities or jobs to those with

11 access to more reliable transportation, and may experience social isolation and other harms—not

12 least the stigma associated with not being part of what Uber calls the mainstream “way the world

13 moves.”

14

C. Judith Smith

15

39. Plaintiff Judith Smith lives and works in Oakland, California. She uses a

16 motorized wheelchair because of mobility disabilities.

17

40. Ms. Smith would and could use Uber if she knew she could count on it for

18 service. She has a smartphone, but she has not downloaded Uber’s app. Early in Uber’s existence

19 she was excited by the prospect of finding transportation more easily but she quickly learned

20 from friends and colleagues about the lack of accessible vehicles on Uber. Since then, she has

21 watched numerous people attempt to call a wheelchair accessible Uber, and none has ever

22 succeeded. As a result of such incidents, she has concluded it would be futile to download the

23 app.

24

41. Ms. Smith is the Founder and Artistic Director Emerita of Axis Dance Company,

25 a group of contemporary dancers with and without physical disabilities. Several members of the

26 company, including Marc Brew, the group’s Artistic Director, use power wheelchairs. Ms. Smith

27 and her colleagues frequently share their frustrations about their transportation options, and

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

10

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 12 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 specifically about their inability to access the convenience of Uber. For example, Mr. Brew

2 shared the following frustrating experience from his visit to the Bay Area in 2017.

3

42. Mr. Brew attended a dance performance at Berkeley’s Zellerbach Hall. After the

4 performance, Mr. Brew needed to get home, but it was after midnight and he had missed the last

5 BART train. There were no accessible vehicles on Uber, and all of his friends who had vehicles

6 with wheelchair lifts were either out of town or asleep. Stranded, and with his chair nearly out of

7 power, he ultimately decided to roll to the home of a friend, who was kind enough to put him up

8 for the night.

9

43. There are many situations in which Ms. Smith would use Uber if WAVs were

10 available. For example, one evening in 2017, Ms. Smith was in San Francisco’s Mission District

11 and wanted to go home to Oakland. The battery on her power wheelchair was running low, and if

12 she could have called an Uber to pick her up, she could have made it home without the stress of

13 running out of power. Instead, she rolled to the 16th Street and Mission BART station, but the

14 elevator there was broken. As she rolled to the 24th Street station, the battery on her chair reached

15 critical levels. She managed to get to her train, but by the time she arrived in Oakland, her

16 battery was so depleted that she could not independently roll up the ramp of her home and had to

17 ask a neighbor to assist her.

18

44. If they were accessible to her, Ms. Smith would call Ubers in exactly the same

19 way as would someone who does not use a wheelchair accessible vehicle. She would order Ubers

20 to and from the airport, when she is out late at night, when she wants to travel to high-density

21 places like San Francisco where parking is limited, or to places that are far from public

22 transportation, in inclement weather, or when health reasons prevent her from driving.

23

45. In these situations, Ms. Smith is left without any alternative transportation and

24 therefore must stay at home or suffer arduous transportation delays and other indignities from not

25 having access to the same service as Uber users who do not use accessible vehicles.

26

D. Julie Fuller

27

46. Plaintiff Julie Fuller lives in Oakland, California. She has mobility and vision

28 disabilities and uses a motorized wheelchair. She has a smartphone but has not downloaded the

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

11

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 13 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Uber app because she has heard from other wheelchair users that there are no wheelchair

2 accessible Ubers. For example, she has discussed this issue at a weekly support group she

3 attends. The other members of her support group, most of whom use motorized wheelchairs,

4 have shared their frustrations with being unable to access Ubers. She has also volunteered at

5 ILRC, attended programming at ILRC, and has discussed the unavailability of wheelchair

6 accessible Ubers with Jessie Lorenz, ILRC’s former executive director.

7

47. Every Wednesday, Ms. Fuller attends weekly support group sessions in North

8 Berkeley. The drive from her house in Oakland to the support group is approximately 15

9 minutes. However, in order to get to the sessions, Ms. Fuller leaves an hour early to catch a ride

10 on BART or AC Transit. She leaves the group early so that she does not have to travel home

11 while it is dark, as she has impaired vision and feels unsafe when she is on the street in her chair

12 at night.

13

48. Because she feels vulnerable when she is out at night, Ms. Fuller also misses other

14 evening events, such as social gatherings, as well as her neighborhood council, which meets one

15 evening a month at the library a few blocks away from her house. Similarly, when it rains, she

16 stays at home because she does not want to risk waiting outside in the rain for prolonged periods

17 to avoid damage to her chair. If she were able to rely on door-to-door transportation from Uber,

18 she would be able to attend these events.

19

49. Ms. Fuller is planning to visit her brother, sister-in-law and new baby nephew in

20 Ohio in November 2018. If she knew that UberWAVs were reliably available, she would plan to

21 take one to the airport, but she has decided not to use Uber because she is concerned that a

22 vehicle will not be available to take her, or that delays could cause her to miss her flight.

23

E. Sascha Bittner

24

50. Sascha Bittner lives in San Francisco, California. She uses a motorized

25 wheelchair because she has mobility disabilities. Ms. Bittner does not have a smartphone but has

26 witnessed family and friends attempt to order a wheelchair accessible vehicle through the app

27 only to find that no vehicles are available. Ms. Bittner has attended programming at ILRC.

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

12

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 14 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

51. For example, in January 2017, Ms. Bittner participated in the Women’s March

2 with her family in San Francisco. Her family would have used a wheelchair accessible Uber to

3 get to the march, but none was available. Instead, the family engaged in a time consuming ballet

4 of pickups and drop offs to avoid the crowds and limited parking.

5

52. Ms. Bittner campaigns for fair wages for in-home care workers and attends events

6 around the Bay Area and the state related to this work. She also participates in workshops at

7 ILRC. She often relies on her stepfather, Bruce Joseph, to drive her in the family’s accessible

8 van. However just as often, going out to routine events such as regular medical appointments or

9 meetings becomes an all-day ordeal, when she builds in time for delays and disruptions on public

10 transit. Paratransit is routinely hours behind schedule. For example, she was hours late to a 9:30

11 appointment for which she scheduled paratransit pickup two hours early. She is often left out of

12 spontaneous social gatherings because she can’t simply call an Uber like everyone else to get

13 there and come pick her up when it is over.

14

53. The lack of reliably available wheelchair accessible Ubers excludes Ms. Bittner

15 from an on-demand door-to-door service that is available to people who do not use wheelchairs,

16 and which would greatly improve Ms. Bittner’s ability to live an active life. Ms. Bittner would

17 use Uber if she could count on its services being accessible to her.

18

F. Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco

19

54. Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco (“ILRC”) is a disability rights

20 organization in San Francisco, California, that advocates for people with disabilities and supports

21 them in living independent and active lives. ILRC’s board, staff, and the consumers of its

22 services include people with mobility disabilities who have been deterred from downloading and

23 using Uber because of Uber’s failure to make accessible service reliably available to them.

24 Uber’s discriminatory policies and practices regularly impose economic harms on ILRC,

25 frustrate its efforts to engage in its core advocacy work, and force it to divert resources that it

26 needs to spend on other work. Additionally, many members of its board, staff and constituency

27 are harmed by Uber’s discriminatory failure to make its service equally accessible to people who

28 need WAVs.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

13

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 15 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

55. In recent decades, ILRC has worked to ensure that transportation options are

2 available to people with disabilities. The continued inaccessibility of Uber transportation is thus

3 an issue of concern for ILRC. ILRC has expended time and resources on advocacy work to

4 improve access, including expanding transportation options, for disabled residents of San

5 Francisco. This work has included advocacy and engagement with a wide variety of entities

6 including the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency, the Mayor’s Office on

7 Disability, and San Francisco Paratransit. For example, ILRC has worked with BART to ensure

8 that all aspects of the system, from paying the fare to riding the train, are accessible to people

9 with disabilities, and has advocated for BART to incorporate accessible design principles in its

10 selection of its new train cars.

11

56. On the issue of ride-sharing services specifically, ILRC has been monitoring the

12 growth of these services, and engaging in advocacy work to encourage ride-sharing services to

13 provide wheelchair accessible vehicles. ILRC has devoted staff time and resources to conducting

14 a survey to collect information about the experiences of people with disabilities using rideshare

15 services, to aid them in their advocacy efforts. It has participated in public engagement processes

16 by the San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability and the Metropolitan Transportation Agency

17 regarding the availability of on-demand transportation to people with disabilities in San

18 Francisco. This includes efforts to increase the availability of accessible transportation provided

19 by rideshare companies such as Uber.

20

57. ILRC itself has been injured as a direct result of Uber’s failure to provide a

21 service that is accessible to people who use wheelchair accessible vehicles. ILRC’s interests are

22 adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it has done in its organizing and

23 advocacy efforts, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Uber’s policies and

24 practices. ILRC has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration of

25 its mission.

26

58. Some of ILRC’s staff and board have mobility disabilities, use power

27 wheelchairs, and therefore use a wheelchair accessible vehicle if they are traveling in a car. For

28 example, ILRC Community Organizer Fiona Hinze uses a motorized wheelchair. Uber would

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

14

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 16 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 provide her an additional option to commute to work or to off-site meetings, speaking

2 engagements, and other important work-related events. Without the option of a reliable,

3 convenient on-demand mode of transportation, she is often late, gets stuck in inclement weather,

4 or is vulnerable to outages on public transportation. Each such instance imposes a direct

5 economic harm on ILRC, in the form of lost employee work-time and productivity.

6

59. Additionally, one or more members of ILRC or consumers of ILRC’s services,

7 including Sascha Bittner, have been injured as a direct result of Uber’s discriminatory policies

8 and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right. ILRC can bring this action on

9 behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose

10 and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested, which do not require the participation of

11 individual members in the lawsuit.

12

G. Uber Controls the Transportation Service it has Created

13

60. Uber has created a revolutionary new mode of on-demand transportation that has

14 changed the way millions of Americans get around – so much so that the word “Uber” has

15 become synonymous with convenient, reliable, timely, on-demand transportation. Sometimes

16 Uber distances itself from the fundamental role it has played in creating this system by

17 describing itself as merely a broker or middleman, facilitating connections between drivers and

18 riders which might happen anyway. Nothing could be further from the truth. Uber has created

19 and controls its transportation system in every material respect.

20

H. Uber Controls The Drivers And Vehicles

21

61. Uber has created an on-demand transportation service which enables a rider to

22 order a car from anywhere in most urban areas and reliably be picked up within minutes and

23 taken to a specific destination, without having to exchange cash. Uber has carefully created this

24 service by recruiting and retaining a network of drivers who enter into contracts with Uber

25 agreeing to provide rides to Uber’s customers under terms and conditions determined by Uber.

26 Uber has also carefully cultivated a base of customers by offering them reassurances about the

27 safety and reliability of Uber’s transportation. For example Uber runs regular background checks

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

15

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 17 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 on its drivers8, requires a standard vehicle safety inspection9, monitors the ratings that its drivers

2 receive10, and offers drivers incentives to ensure that there are enough vehicles on the road to

3 meet passenger demand.11

4

62. Individuals who wish to drive for Uber must undergo a driving record check,

5 background check, present their driver’s license, vehicle registration, and driver’s insurance.

6 Uber sets standards for which makes, models, and age of vehicle can be driven in the Uber

7 network. These standards are detailed – but nowhere do they mention wheelchair accessible

8 vehicles. Models must be at least 2002 or later, and in many cases Uber requires much more

9 recent models. See Uber, Vehicle Requirements San Francisco Bay Area,

10 https://www.uber.com/drive/san-francisco/vehicle-requirements. Uber also sets standards for

11 which makes, models, and age of vehicle can be driven for each class of Uber vehicle, such as

12 UberSUV, UberXL, Uber Select and UberBLACK.

13

63. Uber also makes vehicles available to drivers through partnerships with

14 dealerships that offer rental and lease-to-own options to assist its drivers in obtaining vehicles

15 with which to provide Uber transportation services. See Uber, Vehicle Requirements, San

16 Francisco Bay Area, https://www.uber.com/drive/san-francisco/vehicle-requirements/ (“And if

17 you don’t have a car, we can help you get one.”).

18

64. Uber even exercises control over the engineering and manufacture of vehicles for

19 its service. Uber touts its “Advanced Technology Group,” a team that includes hardware and

20 product design engineers. Its goals include “transforming the way the world moves” and

21 “developing long-term technologies that advance Uber’s mission of bringing safe, reliable

22 transportation to everyone, everywhere.” This work includes self-driving cars and trucks, but not

23

24

25 8 CNN.com, “Uber tightens driver background checks,”

26

https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/12/technology/uber-safety-update/index.html?iid=EL, April 12, 2018.

27 9 Uber.com, Vehicle Inspections, https://www.uber.com/drive/san-francisco/inspections/ 10 Uber.com, Star Ratings, https://www.uber.com/drive/resources/how-ratings-work/
28 11 Uber Help, What is surge?, https://help.uber.com/h/e9375d5e-917b-4bc5-8142-23b89a440eec.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

16

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 18 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 wheelchair-accessible vehicles. See Uber, Advanced Technologies Group,

2 https://www.uber.com/info/atg/.

3

65. Through its driver contract, Uber dictates whether, when, where, and how

4 frequently drivers choose to offer rides in Uber vehicles. Uber exercises exclusive control over

5 termination of Uber drivers, and routinely terminates drivers for several reasons, including for

6 poor ratings from customers or discriminatorily refusing to provide service to customers.

7

66. Uber controls which trip requests it transmits to each of its drivers.

8

67. Uber requires that its drivers meet or exceed the estimated time-of-arrival that

9 Uber generates and provides to each customer.

10

68. Uber limits drivers to shifts of no more than 12 hours, preventing drivers who

11 have driven for long stints from using the app for six hours to prevent dangerous driver fatigue.12

12

69. Uber requires that Uber drivers refrain from smoking while providing Uber

13 services.

14

70. Uber prohibits its drivers from discriminating against people based on race,

15 religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, sex, marital status, gender identity, age or

16 any other characteristic protected under applicable federal or state law.

17

71. In addition, Uber instructs Uber drivers that the share of trip requests that they

18 accept through Uber’s app should be consistently high, and that Uber drivers may not accept

19 street hails from potential passengers.

20

72. Uber controls the safety and quality of the service the drivers provide by closely

21 monitoring its drivers. It issues training and directives concerning other requirements to Uber

22 drivers.

23

73. Uber records many details about the demand-responsive transportation services

24 that its drivers provide, including for each trip: (1) the pickup location, (2) the time of pickup, (3)

25 the drop off location, (4) the time of drop off, (5) the distance traveled, (6) the trip route, (7) the

26

27 28 12 Uber.com, “Another Step to Prevent Drowsy Driving,”
https://www.uber.com/newsroom/drowsydriving/, February 12, 2018.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

17

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 19 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 trip duration, and (8) the customer’s identity. Uber employees who supervise drivers have easy

2 access to this data.

3

74. Uber monitors its Uber drivers’ performance by asking customers for written

4 feedback, including a driver “rating” of between 1 and 5, via the app, after every ride that a

5 driver provides, and Uber routinely follows up with customers who express dissatisfaction. Uber

6 regularly terminates or suspends Uber drivers whose average customer rating falls below a

7 certain threshold.

8

75. In addition, Uber maintains general commercial liability insurance to cover claims

9 concerning incidents that occur while drivers are providing Uber transportation services.

10

76. Uber tightly controls payment for its Uber transportation services.

11

77. Uber controls the fare charged for each trip through an algorithm which takes

12 account of the distance traveled and duration of the trip, along with the intensity of demand for

13 rides at the time of the ride request.

14

78. Uber controls the supply of drivers by encouraging them to work at particular

15 times (by increasing fares when there is increased demand), by offering them financial rewards

16 for accumulating a large number of trips, and by providing them with information about where

17 they are likely to get more trips or preferential fares. Uber exerts control over how many vehicles

18 provide its service at a given time through carefully calibrated adjustments in its service’s

19 financial incentives. For example, Uber’s “surge” pricing imposes additional charges during

20 high-demand times to “make sure those who need a ride can get one.” See Uber Help, What is

21 surge?, https://help.uber.com/h/e9375d5e-917b-4bc5-8142-23b89a440eec.

22

I. Uber Controls Who Can Ride In An Uber and How

23

79. In addition to carefully controlling the drivers, Uber also controls who may use

24 Uber’s transportation service. In order to use Uber, customers must download Uber’s app and

25 create an account, which requires them to agree to Uber’s terms of service. The customer can

26 then order a ride for themselves or someone else. The entire ride is mediated by Uber from start

27 to finish. A rider could request an Uber, travel to their destination, and pay for it, all without ever

28 speaking to the driver.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

18

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 20 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

80. To call an Uber, the customer opens the Uber app, selects which class of vehicle

2 they want and then submits a request to Uber for a vehicle through the app, either for their own

3 use or for other passengers.

4

81. Uber then identifies a close, available Uber vehicle and then notifies the requester

5 either by text message or the Uber app that a driver has been assigned. The notification includes

6 the driver’s name, customer rating, phone number, vehicle license plate number, make and

7 model of the vehicle, and the driver’s estimated time of arrival. If the customer submitted a

8 desired trip destination, then Uber will provide a fare estimate. The customer can then track the

9 location of the Uber as the driver navigates to the customer’s identified pick-up address. The

10 driver and customer can communicate with each other through Uber’s app.

11

82. Once the Uber arrives, the Uber app notifies the customer, and they and any other

12 associated passengers may then board the vehicle. The driver then begins the trip in the Uber

13 software app and proceeds to the desired destination. If the requesting customer submitted the

14 destination address, the app will supply the driver with turn-by-turn directions to the desired

15 destination

16

83. When the Uber arrives at the desired destination, the driver ends the trip in the

17 Uber’s app. Uber then charges the customer’s credit card for the trip fare. No cash is

18 exchanged. Uber allows the rider and the driver to provide ratings of each other in the app after

19 the ride has concluded.

20

84. Fares for Uber’s transportation services are based on the duration and distance of

21 each trip and other factors such as demand at the time and place of the ride, as determined by

22 Uber’s algorithms. Uber keeps a percentage of each fare.

23

85. Uber compensates its Uber drivers based on the duration and distance of the trips

24 that they provide to customers. Payments are not transferred directly from customers to drivers;

25 rather, Uber collects and holds customer payments, deducts fees, and then later transfers money

26 to drivers. Customers who dispute the fare for a particular trip must contact Uber customer

27 service representatives to request an adjustment to their fares.

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

19

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 21 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

86. Uber closely monitors and controls interactions between Uber drivers and

2 customers.

3

87. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Uber purports to offer the full range of classes of

4 Uber transportation service to the public. Customers can order an Uber at any time of day and in

5 any part of the Bay Area, selecting from a wide range of options including luxury vehicles,

6 standard vehicles, large vehicles, or carpools, which enable them to ride with strangers for a

7 reduced fare. Although Uber advertises UberWAV in the Bay Area, Defendants have chosen not

8 to make wheelchair accessible Ubers available in the same reliable and timely manner as their

9 services for riders who do not need wheelchair accessible Ubers.

10

J. Uber Discriminates Against People Who Need Wheelchair Accessible Ubers.

11

88. Uber provides a valuable transportation alternative to millions of Bay Area

12 residents, allowing people to more easily travel to work, social events, community engagements,

13 appointments, and other destinations, yet Uber excludes people with mobility disabilities from

14 these same benefits of its convenient transportation.

15

89. Uber could end its discrimination against people who use wheelchair accessible

16 vehicles if it chose to do so. In fact it has already begun providing wheelchair accessible Ubers in

17 several major cities. For example, in London, Uber began providing wheelchair accessible Ubers

18 in 2016 through a service called UberACCESS.13 It rolled out this service to six more U.K. cities

19 the following year.14

20

90. Closer to home, Uber has made UberWAVs available in Philadelphia, rolling out

21 a fleet of wheelchair accessible vehicles in June of 2017.15

22

23 13 Uber.com, “Introducing uberWAV: transportation for everyone, everywhere in London,”
24 https://newsroom.uber.com/uk/ldnwav/, May 10, 2016.

14 Uber.com, “Forward-facing, forward thinking: introducing uberACCESS,” 25 https://www.uber.com/en-GB/blog/uber-access-2/, March 23, 2017;TheNextWeb.com, “Uber’s

26

wheelchair-accessible uberACCESS service launches in four new UK markets,” https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/07/14/ubers-wheelchair-accessible-uberaccess-service-

launches-four-new-uk-markets/, July 14, 2017. 27
15 Philly.com, “Uber and Lyft's wheelchair access grows, with room to improve,”

28 http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/ubers-wheelchair-accessibility-grows-with-

room-for-improvement-20170706.html, July 6, 2017.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

20

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 22 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

91. However, Uber has not provided wheelchair accessible Ubers in a way which

2 would make Uber’s transportation service fully and equally accessible in the Bay Area.

3

92. Plaintiffs do not here specifically seek an order requiring Uber to purchase

4 vehicles as a way of putting an end to its discriminatory conduct. Given Uber’s extensive control

5 over the operation of the drivers, including through its fare structure, there are many ways Uber

6 can provide relief.

7

93. In previous communications with Uber, Plaintiffs and their counsel have

8 enumerated some of the possible ways that appropriate WAV service could be achieved, and

9 have made numerous requests to Uber to modify its policies to provide full and equal access to

10 its service for riders who need WAVs. Plaintiffs previously sought remedies for Uber’s failure to

11 provide equal access to its service based on California anti-discrimination laws in California

12 state court. In September 2018, the case was precluded from being heard on the merits by state

13 law jurisdictional issues.

14

94. Before the state court litigation began, counsel for Plaintiffs raised concerns about

15 the accessibility of Uber’s service. Several months later, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Uber’s counsel a

16 letter noting the lack of progress on this issue and Plaintiffs initiated the state court action soon

17 thereafter. Throughout the state court litigation, Plaintiffs made overtures to Uber regarding

18 possible modifications to its policies and practices that could result in equivalent service. On

19 September 26, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Fiona Hinze, of Plaintiff ILRC, met with Uber to

20 discuss specific policy modifications Uber could make in order to provide equal access to its

21 service to people who need WAVs. Plaintiffs’ counsel followed up on October 10, 2018 with a

22 list of specific modifications.

23

95. Despite Plaintiffs’ requests over the past year, Uber has not responded with

24 modifications sufficient to provide full and equal access to its transportation services.

25

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

26

Discrimination Prohibited by the Americans With Disabilities Act

(42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq.)

27

96. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding

28 and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

21

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 23 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

97. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the full

2 and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by private entities

3 primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce.

4 42 U.S.C. § 12184.

5

98. Plaintiffs and all members of the class are persons with “disabilities” entitled to

6 protection under the ADA.

7

99. Plaintiffs and members of the putative class, including members of Plaintiff ILRC

8 or participants in ILRC’s services such as Plaintiffs Julie Fuller and Sascha Bittner, are aware of

9 Defendants’ unlawful actions, and their knowledge of this discrimination has deterred them from

10 using Uber’s transportation service. Moreover, Plaintiffs and members of the putative class,

11 including members of Plaintiff ILRC and participants in ILRC’s services such as Plaintiff Sascha

12 Bittner, have been and continue to be denied access to Uber’s transportation service on occasions

13 when a friend or colleague has attempted to order an Uber ride for them and found there are no

14 wheelchair accessible Ubers available.

15

100. Public transportation is defined to mean “transportation by bus, rail, or any other

16 conveyance (other than by aircraft) that provides the general public with general or special

17 service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing basis.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(10).

18

101. Defendants provide specified public transportation services within the meaning of

19 the term under Title III on a regular and continuing basis.

20

102. Title III of the ADA also prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the

21 full and equal enjoyment of services provided by places of public accommodations. 42 U.S.C.

22 § 12182.

23

103. Defendants operate a public accommodation subject to Title III’s

24 nondiscrimination requirements. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, 12182.

25

104. Defendants operate a “travel service” as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12181.

26

105. Defendants’ operations affect interstate commerce, including by providing

27 transportation across state lines.

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

22

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 24 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

106. Defendants discriminate against Plaintiffs and members of the putative class by

2 denying them full and equal enjoyment of Uber’s goods, services, facilities, privileges,

3 advantages, and/or accommodations in violation of Title III of the ADA. Defendants have failed

4 to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, or procedures, provide auxiliary

5 aids and services, and remove barriers in order to afford full and equal access to their service to

6 Plaintiffs and members of the putative class.

7

107. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief remedying the discrimination

8 under 42 U.S.C. § 12188. Unless the Court issues injunctive relief to halt Uber’s unlawful

9 practices, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm.

10

108. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.

11

109. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

12

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

13

Declaratory Relief on Behalf of Plaintiffs

14

110. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing and subsequent allegations as

15 though fully set forth herein.

16

111. An actual controversy exists between the parties. Plaintiffs contend, and are

17 informed and believe that Defendants deny, that by failing to adopt policies and practices that

18 make WAVs available through its service, Defendants are failing to comply with applicable

19 laws, including but not limited to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§

20 12181, et seq.

21

112. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that the

22 parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.

23

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the relief set forth below.

24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

25

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief as follows:

26

1. For an order certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

27 Procedure 23(b)(2), and appointing Plaintiffs as the representatives of the Class and their counsel

28 as Class Counsel;

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

23

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 25 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

2. For an order finding and declaring that the acts and practices of Uber as set forth

2 herein are unlawful, unfair, and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181,

3 et seq.;

4

3. For a permanent injunction pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

5 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., to ensure that individuals who use wheelchairs, including Plaintiffs, are

6 able to use Uber’s service on a basis that is full and equal to that which is available to other

7 members of the general public;

8

4. For an award of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the filing and

9 prosecution of this action, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. §12188; and

10

5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11

12 DATED: October 24, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

13
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 14

15

16

Sidney Wolinsky

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Complaint

24

1

 
 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 1 of 27

1 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
STUART SEABORN (Bar No. 198590) 2 MELISSA RIESS (Bar No. 295959)
2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor 3 Berkeley, California 94704-1204
Telephone: (510) 665-8644 4 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
sseaborn@dralegal.org 5 mriess@dralegal.org

6 CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP MARK A. CHAVEZ (Bar No. 90858)
7 NANCE F. BECKER (Bar No. 99292) 42 Miller Avenue
8 Mill Valley, California 94941
Telephone: (415) 381-5599 9 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
mark@chavezgertler.com 10 nance@chavezgertler.com

11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

16

17 INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCE CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, a California
18 non-profit corporation, JUDITH SMITH, an individual, JULIE FULLER, an individual,
19 SASCHA BITTNER, an individual, and COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOR
20 INDEPENDENT LIVING, a California nonprofit corporation,
21
Plaintiffs, 22
v. 23
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware 24 Corporation, RASIER, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation, and RASIER-CA, LLC, a 25 Delaware Corporation,

Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq.
CLASS ACTION

26

Defendants.

27

28

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 2 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

1. Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy ongoing discrimination against people with

3 mobility disabilities who want to, but cannot, use the transportation service operated by Uber

4 Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”). Since launching its transportation service in San Francisco in July

5 2010, Uber has experienced explosive growth, has seized an ever-expanding market share from

6 taxi companies and is now a major provider of individual transportation services in the United

7 States. Uber’s success is based on the quality of its service, which provides users with reliable

8 on-demand transportation within minutes in over 600 cities worldwide. Unfortunately, in its

9 rapid growth into a multi-billion-dollar behemoth, Uber has not taken adequate steps to satisfy its

10 legal responsibility to provide the same reliable on-demand transportation service to individuals

11 who use wheelchair accessible vehicles (“WAVs”).

12

2. Uber purports to offer WAVs to users in the Bay Area through its UberWAV

13 button, but the reality is this button only provides riders second-class service – when it provides

14 service at all. Even when the service is available, the average wait time in San Francisco for

15 UberWAV is almost four times longer than for non-wheelchair accessible UberX. In Alameda

16 County, the wait time for a WAV is on average 12 times longer. Unlike all of Uber’s other

17 services, UberWAV does not offer the option of reserving a ride in advance.

18

3. Uber is one of the leading companies in the new “sharing economy.” It provides

19 on-demand rides to individuals through its network of over 2,000,000 drivers globally. The riders

20 pay Uber through Uber’s smart phone application with their credit cards, and Uber splits the

21 payments with its drivers. Uber’s phenomenal success and unparalleled growth pose an

22 existential threat to traditional taxi service, and Uber has invested heavily in what it considers to

23 be transportation technologies of the future, including autonomous vehicles. As a result Uber’s

24 market value has grown to over $70 billion.1

25

4. It appears that the future of on-demand transportation belongs to Uber and that,

26 unless forced to do so by this Court, Uber will exclude disabled individuals from that future. As

27 28 1 NY Times, “Uber and Lyft Charge Toward Potential I.P.O.s Next Year”,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/technology/uber-lyft-ipo.html (Oct. 16, 2018).

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

1

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 3 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 detailed below, Uber’s acts and practices deny individuals who need wheelchair accessible

2 vehicles equal access to the service it provides, and prevent them from obtaining the benefits of

3 its service. Such conduct directly violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42

4 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

5

5. It is fully within Uber’s power to provide reliable and timely accessible service.

6 Uber tightly controls all aspects of how both its drivers and riders use the service, mediating all

7 payments, regulating the types of vehicles the drivers use, and offering financial incentives to

8 ensure that there are enough drivers on the road to meet the demand for rides. Moreover, Uber is

9 already providing widespread wheelchair accessible transportation in London and six other cities

10 around the United Kingdom. Uber could similarly end its discrimination against people in the

11 Bay Area who need wheelchair accessible vehicles if it chose to do so.

12

6. This litigation is intended to halt Uber’s ongoing discrimination against

13 individuals with mobility disabilities. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to redress

14 Uber’s violations of the ADA and California law. Because Defendants’ practices adversely

15 impact hundreds, if not thousands, of disabled individuals, Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify their

16 claims for class treatment and to order relief that will benefit all members of the Class.

17

II. PARTIES

18

7. Plaintiff Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco (“ILRC”) is a

19 disability rights organization in San Francisco, California, that advocates for people with

20 disabilities and supports them in living independent and active lives. ILRC’s board, staff, and the

21 consumers of its services include people with mobility disabilities who have been deterred from

22 downloading and using Uber because of Uber’s failure to provide them with full and equal

23 access to its service. Uber’s discriminatory policies and practices regularly impose economic

24 harms on ILRC, frustrate the organization’s efforts to engage in its core advocacy work, and

25 force it to divert resources that it needs to spend on other work. Plaintiff ILRC sues on behalf of

26 itself, its consumers, board members, and staff, and in furtherance of its mission of ensuring that

27 people with disabilities are fully integrated into the social and economic fabric of their

28 communities.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

2

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 4 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

8. Plaintiff Community Resources for Independent Living (“CRIL”) is a disability

2 rights advocacy and support organization located in Hayward, California. CRIL supports people

3 with disabilities in southern Alameda County to live independently, advocate for themselves, and

4 access services, programs, activities, resources, and facilities in the community. CRIL’s

5 consumers include individuals who use motorized wheelchairs and scooters and would use Uber

6 but for unavailability of wheelchair accessible Ubers. CRIL participates in advocacy on a variety

7 of issues affecting people with disabilities, including mobility and transportation. Uber’s

8 discriminatory policies and practices regularly impose economic harms on CRIL by frustrating

9 its efforts to engage in its core advocacy work, and by forcing it to divert resources that it needs

10 to spend on other work. Plaintiff CRIL sues on behalf of itself and its members, and in

11 furtherance of its mission of ensuring that people with disabilities receive full and equal access to

12 the services and facilities.

13

9. Plaintiff Judith Smith is an individual residing in Alameda County. She uses a

14 motorized wheelchair and would use Uber but for the lack of reliable and timely wheelchair

15 accessible Ubers. Because Ms. Smith has heard about and witnessed the unavailability of the

16 service she has not downloaded Uber’s application because she knows that Uber’s WAV service

17 is frequently unavailable.

18

10. Plaintiff Julie Fuller is an individual residing in Alameda County. She uses a

19 motorized wheelchair and would use Uber but for the lack of reliable and timely wheelchair

20 accessible Ubers. She has learned that WAVs are not available through Uber from other

21 wheelchair users, and people she knows at ILRC. She has not downloaded Uber’s application

22 because she knows that Uber’s WAV service is frequently unavailable.

23

11. Plaintiff Sascha Bittner is an individual residing in San Francisco. She uses a

24 motorized wheelchair and would use Uber but for the lack of reliable and timely wheelchair

25 accessible Ubers. She has witnessed family members attempt to call wheelchair accessible Ubers

26 and knows that they are not reliably available. She would use Uber’s WAV service if she could

27 count on it for reliable door-to-door transportation.

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

3

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 5 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

12. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”2) is a for-profit corporation that

2 provides on-demand transportation services throughout California, including in Alameda and

3 San Francisco Counties. Uber is registered in Delaware and its principal place of business is San

4 Francisco, California.

5

13. Defendant Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”) is a for-profit corporation registered in

6 Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Rasier is a subsidiary

7 of Uber Technologies, Inc.

8

14. Defendant Rasier-CA, LLC (“Rasier”) is a for-profit corporation registered in

9 Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Rasier-CA, LLC is a

10 subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc.

11

III. JURISDICTION

12

15. Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the

13 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq. The Court has subject matter

14 jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12188. The Court has

15 jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and to order further relief under 28

16 U.S.C. § 2202.

17

IV. VENUE

18

16. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§

19 1391(b)-(c) because Defendants’ principal place of business is in San Francisco, California, the

20 business practices at issue were conducted throughout California, including in San Francisco

21 County and Alameda County, liability arose in those counties, and events and conduct giving rise

22 to the violations of law asserted herein occurred in those counties. Plaintiffs Judith Smith and

23 Julie Fuller reside in Oakland, California, and Sascha Bittner resides in San Francisco. They

24 have suffered discrimination on the basis of their disabilities and been deterred from taking

25 advantage of the transportation service offered by Uber in Alameda County and San Francisco.

26 Plaintiff ILRC has its principal place of business in San Francisco, and has likewise suffered

27

28 2 The name “Uber” will be used to refer to all Defendants named in this Complaint.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

4

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 6 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 injury there. Plaintiff CRIL has its principal place of business in Alameda County, and has

2 suffered injury there.

3

V. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

4

17. The appropriate division for this case is the San Francisco Division. Defendants’

5 principal place of business is in San Francisco and a substantial part of the acts or omissions,

6 including the business practices at issue in this case, were developed and implemented in San

7 Francisco.

8

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

9

18. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs bring this action

10 on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. The Class consists of all

11 individuals in San Francisco County and Alameda County who are disabled because of a

12 mobility impairment, utilize wheelchairs and therefore use accessible transportation, and who

13 have been and continue to be deterred from using Uber’s transportation service due to Uber’s

14 discriminatory acts and practices. Excluded from the Class is any individual who has previously

15 utilized Uber and/or has downloaded the Uber application, and Uber’s officers and employees.

16

19. Plaintiffs are unable to state the precise number of potential members of the

17 proposed Class. The Class numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands, and members of the Class

18 are sufficiently numerous and geographically diverse that joinder of all members is

19 impracticable.

20

20. There is a well-defined community of interest among the members of the

21 proposed Class in that there are questions of law and fact common to all of their claims. Those

22 common issues include, but are not limited to: whether Uber provides the transportation services

23 that Plaintiffs can use; and whether Uber has violated Title III of the ADA by failing to provide

24 equal access to its service to people who use wheelchairs and need WAVs.

25

21. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of, and not antagonistic to, the claims of all other

26 members of the Class because Uber conducted and continues to conduct its business in a manner

27 which caused, continues to cause, and will in the future cause all Class members to suffer the

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

5

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 7 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 same or similar injury. Plaintiffs, by advancing their claims, will also advance the claims of all

2 other similarly-situated individuals.

3

22. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

4 absent Class members. There are no material conflicts between Plaintiffs’ claims and those of

5 absent Class members that would make class certification inappropriate. Plaintiffs’ counsel are

6 experienced in disability rights and class action litigation, and will vigorously assert Plaintiffs’

7 claims and the claims of all Class members.

8

23. A class action is superior to other potential methods for achieving a fair and

9 efficient adjudication of this controversy. Whatever difficulties may exist in the management of

10 this case as a class action will be greatly outweighed by the benefits of the class action

11 procedure, including but not limited to providing Class members with a method for the redress

12 and prevention of their injuries and claims that could not, given the complexity of the issues and

13 the nature of the requested relief, be pursued in individual litigation. Further, the prosecution of

14 separate actions by the individual Class members, even if possible, would create a risk of

15 inconsistent or varying adjudications and incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendant.

16

VII. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

17

24. Uber provides transportation services to members of the general public, including

18 in San Francisco County and Alameda County.

19

25. Uber is not a broker or a middleman merely facilitating a transaction through a

20 smart phone application. Instead, it provides transportation to its customers by recruiting and

21 retaining a network of drivers who contractually agree to provide rides to Uber’s customers in

22 accordance with terms and conditions specified by Uber. Similarly, Uber’s customers must enter

23 into contracts with Uber to utilize its service on terms and conditions specified by Uber. In all

24 material respects, including the financial terms, the transactions between the drivers and the

25 customers are dictated, mediated, and controlled by Uber. There are no negotiations between

26 Uber’s drivers and its customers. And Uber takes the lion’s share of the revenues generated in

27 the transactions.

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

6

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 8 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

26. Uber provides different levels of transportation service around the country. In San

2 Francisco and Alameda Counties, the company offers UberX, its basic rideshare option, Uber

3 POOL, a carpooling service, Uber Select and Uber Black, premium transportation services, and

4 UberXL and UberSUV, services limited to larger vehicles. In addition, it purports to offer Uber

5 Assist, a service in which the drivers have self-certified as being willing to assist riders with

6 mobility disabilities, and UberWAV, a car service option offering wheelchair accessible

7 vehicles.

8

27. Uber has created a genuinely new mode of transportation, generating both the

9 demand for rides and the supply of drivers by incentivizing both the riders and the drivers to

10 participate in the service. Without Uber, this new mode of transportation would not exist.

11

28. Moreover, Uber perceives itself as creating a new transportation service which

12 transcends the technology. Uber urges commuters to consider it a “daily transportation option” or

13 one that complements their use of other modes of transportation (“While public transportation is

14 still very much a necessity, research has found that Uber acts as an important complement for 15 commuters.”3) Uber has even compared itself to a utility (“Today we aspire to make

16 transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere and for everyone”4) and touted the ability

17 of its transportation service to tackle difficult public policy issues such as “congestion, pollution

18 and parking by getting more people into fewer cars.”5 In Uber’s own words: “Our work doesn’t 19 end with transporting people.”6 In the words of the Northern District of California: “Uber does

20 not simply sell software; it sells rides.” O’Connor v. Uber Techs. Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1141

21 (N.D Cal. 2015).

22

23 3 Uber.com, How Uber Can Be a Daily Transit Option, https://www.uber.com/newsroom/how-
24 uber-can-be-a-daily-transportation-option/, October 5, 2016.
25 4 Uber.com, Celebrating Cities: A New Look and Feel for Uber, https://www.uber.com/newsroom/celebrating-cities-a-new-look-and-feel-for-uber-7/, February 3,
26 2016. 5 Travis Kalanick, Uber’s Plan to Get More People Into Fewer Cars,
27 https://www.ted.com/talks/travis_kalanick_uber_s_plan_to_get_more_people_into_fewer_cars, February 2016.
28 6 Uber.com, Advanced Technology Group, https://www.uber.com/info/atg/

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

7

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 9 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

A. Uber Discriminates Against Individuals With Mobility Disabilities By Failing

To Provide Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles

2

29. Uber purports to offer access to wheelchair accessible vehicles to users in the Bay

3

Area. However, although the app includes an UberWAV button, the reality is that this button

4

only provides riders second-class service – when it provides service at all.

5

30. When a wheelchair accessible Uber is available in San Francisco, the wait times

6

for these vehicles are on average almost four times longer than for non-wheelchair accessible

7

UberX. In Alameda County, the wait time for a WAV is on average 12 times longer. This is not

8

an effective or viable component of Uber’s transportation system.

9

31. Plaintiffs tested a number of central locations around the Bay Area daily in

10

September 2018 and October 2018. In Alameda County, a total of 60 tests during business hours

11

reflected an average estimated wait time for an UberWAV of 29.7 minutes. In comparison, the

12

average estimated wait times for an UberX in the same locations was 2.4 minutes. In other

13

words, on average an UberWAV rider is told they will have to wait 12.4 times longer than an

14

UberX rider. Some estimated wait times listed for UberWAVs were as long as 51 minutes. In

15

only one test out of 60 did the estimated wait time for an UberWAV dip into the single digits (8

16

minutes). In one instance, the app reflected that no WAVs were available. In San Francisco, the

17

average estimated wait time for an UberWAV was 11.5 minutes, almost four times longer than

18

the average for an UberX. UberWAV estimated wait times could reach as high as 21 minutes,

19

whereas for an UberX at the same location, the estimated wait was 2 minutes.

20

32. The information above was based on testing of estimated wait times at central

21

locations during business hours in the morning and the evening. Anecdotal reports of UberWAV

22

use reflect that the service may be even more inadequate than the above information suggests.

23

For example, an UberWAV user reported an occasion when she used UberWAV for the journey

24

to an appointment. When she tried to request an UberWAV for the return journey, she received a

25

message that no cars were available for two hours before she obtained confirmation that an

26

UberWAV could take her. Once the ride was finally confirmed, she had to wait an additional 25

27

minutes for the vehicle to arrive. This rider reported that about 50 percent of her requests for a

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

8

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 10 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 ride using Uber’s app yield a message that no cars are available. She has been reluctant to use

2 UberWAV because of the risk of being stranded and unable to get transportation home. To make

3 this risk worse, UberWAV does not offer the possibility of booking a vehicle in advance –

4 although the option of advanced reservations is available for all of Uber’s other services.

5

33. Uber riders who use wheelchair accessible vehicles are also denied access to all

6 but one of Uber’s transportation classes. Riders who use wheelchairs requiring lifts or ramps can

7 only travel in an UberWAV. They cannot use Uber’s carpool service UberPOOL, its large

8 vehicle services UberXL and UberSUV, and its deluxe vehicle services such as UberBLACK or

9 UberSelect.

10

34. Uber has been sued in cities around the United States for its violation of disability

11 laws by failing to provide wheelchair-accessible service, yet has continued its policy of denying

12 that service. See, e.g., Equal Rights Center v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 17-cv-01272 (D.D.C.

13 filed 6/28/2017), Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-cv-

14 09690 (N.D. Ill. Filed 10/13/2016), Crawford v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-02664-RS

15 (N.D. Cal. Filed 5/9/2017), Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-06124-RS (N.D.

16 Cal. Filed 10/26/2017), Ramos v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. SA-14-CA-502-XR, 2015 WL 758087

17 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2015).

18

35. Although Uber exercises substantial control over drivers to incentivize them to

19 drive for Uber and to drive at particular times, there is no indication that Uber is doing anything

20 to incentivize drivers to drive wheelchair accessible Ubers. It has previously admitted that it is

21 doing nothing: “[Uber] doesn’t treat Drivers who have or want WAVs any differently than it

22 treats other Divers [sic].” BCID v. Uber, SDNY, Case No. 1:17-cv-06399-NRB, Dkt 35 (Defts’

23 Mot. to Dismiss, December 8, 2017 at 7). Just as it has intentionally flouted regulation and law 24 enforcement in other contexts7, Uber has intentionally avoided complying with anti-

25

7 See, e.g., N.Y. Times, How Uber Deceives the Authorities Worldwide, 26 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-program-evade-authorities.html,

27

March 3, 2017; The Recorder, Former Uber CLO Salle Yoo Named in Reports of Tool Meant to Evade Foreign Authorities,

28

https://www.law.com/therecorder/sites/therecorder/2018/01/12/former-uber-clo-salle-yoonamed-in-reports-of-tool-meant-to-evade-foreign-authorities/, January 12, 2018; Eric

Newcomber, Uber Pushed the Limits of the Law. Now Comes the Reckoning, Bloomberg.com,

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

9

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 11 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 discrimination laws by failing to make full and equal access to Uber’s transportation service a

2 reality through UberWAV.

3

B. Uber’s Discrimination Results In Real Harm

4

36. Uber’s failure to make accessible vehicles reliably available through its service

5 denies people who use wheelchairs access to on-demand transportation that could drastically

6 improve their lives, enabling them to travel to a wider variety of destinations without having to

7 rely on transportation via expensive taxis, unreliable paratransit, and limited public transit. It

8 would enable them to travel spontaneously, without having to schedule transportation hours or

9 even days in advance. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs and members of the class are excluded from these

10 benefits, and suffer real harm as a result.

11

37. People who use wheelchairs face the denigrating experience of being denied a

12 basic service that is available to all other paying customers. Even when an UberWAV vehicle is

13 technically available, because so few exist, there are typically frequent and lengthy delays.

14 People who use wheelchairs and use UberWAV must contend with missed appointments, being

15 late for events, and the risk of being stranded far from other transportation options because they

16 are unable to secure an UberWAV for their return journeys.

17

38. Due to distances between destinations in the Bay Area and the severe limitations

18 of public transportation and paratransit, many people with disabilities must use private

19 transportation services to travel from one place to another. The private options are severely

20 lacking as well. Wheelchair accessible taxis are rare or nonexistent. Paratransit is extremely

21 unreliable and often requires lengthy waits.

22

39. As described below, the lack of effective access to this new mode of

23 transportation means that Plaintiffs may lose employment opportunities or jobs to those with

24 access to more reliable transportation, and may experience social isolation and other harms—not

25 least the stigma associated with not being part of what Uber calls the mainstream “way the world

26 moves.”

27

28 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-11/uber-pushed-the-limits-of-the-law-nowcomes-the-reckoning, October 11, 2017.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

10

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 12 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

C. Judith Smith

2

40. Plaintiff Judith Smith lives and works in Oakland, California. She uses a

3 motorized wheelchair because of mobility disabilities.

4

41. Ms. Smith would and could use Uber if she knew she could count on it for

5 service. She has a smartphone, but she has not downloaded Uber’s app. Early in Uber’s existence

6 she was excited by the prospect of finding transportation more easily but she quickly learned

7 from friends and colleagues about the lack of accessible vehicles on Uber. Since then, she has

8 watched numerous people attempt to call a wheelchair accessible Uber, and none has ever

9 succeeded. As a result of such incidents, she has concluded it would be futile to download the

10 app.

11

42. Ms. Smith is the Founder and Artistic Director Emerita of Axis Dance Company,

12 a group of contemporary dancers with and without physical disabilities. Several members of the

13 company, including Marc Brew, the group’s Artistic Director, use power wheelchairs. Ms. Smith

14 and her colleagues frequently share their frustrations about their transportation options, and

15 specifically about their inability to access the convenience of Uber. For example, Mr. Brew

16 shared the following frustrating experience from his visit to the Bay Area in 2017.

17

43. Mr. Brew attended a dance performance at Berkeley’s Zellerbach Hall. After the

18 performance, Mr. Brew needed to get home, but it was after midnight and he had missed the last

19 BART train. There were no accessible vehicles on Uber, and all of his friends who had vehicles

20 with wheelchair lifts were either out of town or asleep. Stranded, and with his chair nearly out of

21 power, he ultimately decided to roll to the home of a friend, who was kind enough to put him up

22 for the night.

23

44. There are many situations in which Ms. Smith would use Uber if WAVs were

24 available. For example, one evening in 2017, Ms. Smith was in San Francisco’s Mission District

25 and wanted to go home to Oakland. The battery on her power wheelchair was running low, and if

26 she could have called an Uber to pick her up, she could have made it home without the stress of

27 running out of power. Instead, she rolled to the 16th Street and Mission BART station, but the

28 elevator there was broken. As she rolled to the 24th Street station, the battery on her chair reached

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

11

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 13 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 critical levels. She managed to get to her train, but by the time she arrived in Oakland, her

2 battery was so depleted that she could not independently roll up the ramp of her home and had to

3 ask a neighbor to assist her.

4

45. If they were accessible to her, Ms. Smith would call Ubers in exactly the same

5 way as would someone who does not use a wheelchair accessible vehicle. She would order Ubers

6 to and from the airport, when she is out late at night, when she wants to travel to high-density

7 places like San Francisco where parking is limited, or to places that are far from public

8 transportation, in inclement weather, or when health reasons prevent her from driving.

9

46. In these situations, Ms. Smith is left without any alternative transportation and

10 therefore must stay at home or suffer arduous transportation delays and other indignities from not

11 having access to the same service as Uber users who do not use accessible vehicles.

12

D. Julie Fuller

13

47. Plaintiff Julie Fuller lives in Oakland, California. She has mobility and vision

14 disabilities and uses a motorized wheelchair. She has a smartphone but has not downloaded the

15 Uber app because she has heard from other wheelchair users that there are no wheelchair

16 accessible Ubers. For example, she has discussed this issue at a weekly support group she

17 attends. The other members of her support group, most of whom use motorized wheelchairs,

18 have shared their frustrations with being unable to access Ubers. She has also volunteered at

19 ILRC, attended programming at ILRC, and has discussed the unavailability of wheelchair

20 accessible Ubers with Jessie Lorenz, ILRC’s former executive director.

21

48. Every Wednesday, Ms. Fuller attends weekly support group sessions in North

22 Berkeley. The drive from her house in Oakland to the support group is approximately 15

23 minutes. However, in order to get to the sessions, Ms. Fuller leaves an hour early to catch a ride

24 on BART or AC Transit. She leaves the group early so that she does not have to travel home

25 while it is dark, as she has impaired vision and feels unsafe when she is on the street in her chair

26 at night.

27

49. Because she feels vulnerable when she is out at night, Ms. Fuller also misses other

28 evening events, such as social gatherings, as well as her neighborhood council, which meets one

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

12

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 14 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 evening a month at the library a few blocks away from her house. Similarly, when it rains, she

2 stays at home because she does not want to risk waiting outside in the rain for prolonged periods

3 to avoid damage to her chair. If she were able to rely on door-to-door transportation from Uber,

4 she would be able to attend these events.

5

50. Ms. Fuller is planning to visit her brother, sister-in-law and new baby nephew in

6 Ohio in November 2018. If she knew that UberWAVs were reliably available, she would plan to

7 take one to the airport, but she has decided not to use Uber because she is concerned that a

8 vehicle will not be available to take her, or that delays could cause her to miss her flight.

9

E. Sascha Bittner

10

51. Sascha Bittner lives in San Francisco, California. She uses a motorized

11 wheelchair because she has mobility disabilities. Ms. Bittner does not have a smartphone but has

12 witnessed family and friends attempt to order a wheelchair accessible vehicle through the app

13 only to find that no vehicles are available. Ms. Bittner has attended programming at ILRC.

14

52. For example, in January 2017, Ms. Bittner participated in the Women’s March

15 with her family in San Francisco. Her family would have used a wheelchair accessible Uber to

16 get to the march, but none was available. Instead, the family engaged in a time consuming ballet

17 of pickups and drop offs to avoid the crowds and limited parking.

18

53. Ms. Bittner campaigns for fair wages for in-home care workers and attends events

19 around the Bay Area and the state related to this work. She also participates in workshops at

20 ILRC. She often relies on her stepfather, Bruce Joseph, to drive her in the family’s accessible

21 van. However just as often, going out to routine events such as regular medical appointments or

22 meetings becomes an all-day ordeal, when she builds in time for delays and disruptions on public

23 transit. Paratransit is routinely hours behind schedule. For example, she was hours late to a 9:30

24 appointment for which she scheduled paratransit pickup two hours early. She is often left out of

25 spontaneous social gatherings because she can’t simply call an Uber like everyone else to get

26 there and come pick her up when it is over.

27

54. The lack of reliably available wheelchair accessible Ubers excludes Ms. Bittner

28 from an on-demand door-to-door service that is available to people who do not use wheelchairs,

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

13

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 15 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 and which would greatly improve Ms. Bittner’s ability to live an active life. Ms. Bittner would

2 use Uber if she could count on its services being accessible to her.

3

F. Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco

4

55. Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco (“ILRC”) is a disability rights

5 organization in San Francisco, California, that advocates for people with disabilities and supports

6 them in living independent and active lives. ILRC’s board, staff, and the consumers of its

7 services include people with mobility disabilities who have been deterred from downloading and

8 using Uber because of Uber’s failure to make accessible service reliably available to them.

9 Uber’s discriminatory policies and practices regularly impose economic harms on ILRC,

10 frustrate its efforts to engage in its core advocacy work, and force it to divert resources that it

11 needs to spend on other work. Additionally, many members of its board, staff and constituency

12 are harmed by Uber’s discriminatory failure to make its service equally accessible to people who

13 need WAVs.

14

56. In recent decades, ILRC has worked to ensure that transportation options are

15 available to people with disabilities. The continued inaccessibility of Uber transportation is thus

16 an issue of concern for ILRC. ILRC has expended time and resources on advocacy work to

17 improve access, including expanding transportation options, for disabled residents of San

18 Francisco. This work has included advocacy and engagement with a wide variety of entities

19 including the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency, the Mayor’s Office on

20 Disability, and San Francisco Paratransit. For example, ILRC has worked with BART to ensure

21 that all aspects of the system, from paying the fare to riding the train, are accessible to people

22 with disabilities, and has advocated for BART to incorporate accessible design principles in its

23 selection of its new train cars.

24

57. On the issue of ride-sharing services specifically, ILRC has been monitoring the

25 growth of these services, and engaging in advocacy work to encourage ride-sharing services to

26 provide wheelchair accessible vehicles. ILRC has devoted staff time and resources to conducting

27 a survey to collect information about the experiences of people with disabilities using rideshare

28 services, to aid them in their advocacy efforts. It has participated in public engagement processes

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

14

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 16 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 by the San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability and the Metropolitan Transportation Agency

2 regarding the availability of on-demand transportation to people with disabilities in San

3 Francisco. This includes efforts to increase the availability of accessible transportation provided

4 by rideshare companies such as Uber.

5

58. ILRC itself has been injured as a direct result of Uber’s failure to provide a

6 service that is accessible to people who use wheelchair accessible vehicles. ILRC’s interests are

7 adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it has done in its organizing and

8 advocacy efforts, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Uber’s policies and

9 practices. ILRC has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration of

10 its mission.

11

59. Some of ILRC’s staff and board have mobility disabilities, use power

12 wheelchairs, and therefore use a wheelchair accessible vehicle if they are traveling in a car. For

13 example, ILRC Community Organizer Fiona Hinze uses a motorized wheelchair. Uber would

14 provide her an additional option to commute to work or to off-site meetings, speaking

15 engagements, and other important work-related events. Without the option of a reliable,

16 convenient on-demand mode of transportation, she is often late, gets stuck in inclement weather,

17 or is vulnerable to outages on public transportation. Each such instance imposes a direct

18 economic harm on ILRC, in the form of lost employee work-time and productivity.

19

60. Additionally, one or more members of ILRC or consumers of ILRC’s services,

20 including Sascha Bittner, have been injured as a direct result of Uber’s discriminatory policies

21 and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right. ILRC can bring this action on

22 behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose

23 and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested, which do not require the participation of

24 individual members in the lawsuit.

25

G. Community Resources for Independent Living

26

61. Community Resources for Independent Living (“CRIL”) is a group located in

27 Hayward, California. CRIL supports people with disabilities in southern Alameda County to live

28 independently, advocate for themselves, and access services, programs, activities, resources, and

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

15

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 17 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 facilities in the community. Uber’s discriminatory policies and practices harm CRIL and its

2 members, frustrate its efforts to engage in its core advocacy work, and force it to divert resources

3 that it needs to spend on other work. Additionally, many members of its board, staff and

4 constituency are harmed by Uber’s discriminatory policies and practices.

5

62. One of the many services CRIL provides to its constituent community is training

6 in how to use public transportation, including BART, AC Transit, paratransit, and rideshare.

7 CRIL employs two travel trainers in its Hayward office. The travel trainers assist people with

8 disabilities to become comfortable using a variety of modes of transportation and learn about the

9 accommodations that are provided to make these modes accessible to people with disabilities.

10 The lack of wheelchair accessible Ubers deprives CRIL’s members of an important

11 transportation option. Additionally, to address the lack of wheelchair accessible vehicles in the

12 area, a situation that would be dramatically improved if Uber provided timely and reliable WAV

13 service, CRIL started a van share program, through which it makes available two wheelchair

14 accessible vans via Getaround, a peer-to-peer car share portal.

15

63. CRIL also advocates on a variety of issues affecting people with disabilities,

16 including mobility and transportation. For example, it provided feedback to BART’s design team

17 to help BART ensure that its new train cars will be fully accessible to people with all kinds of

18 disabilities.

19

64. CRIL itself has been injured as a direct result of Uber’s failure to provide a

20 service that is accessible to people who use wheelchair accessible vehicles. CRIL’s interests are

21 adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it has done in its organizing and

22 advocacy efforts, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Uber’s policies and

23 practices. CRIL has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration of

24 its mission.

25

65. Many of CRIL’s staff, constituency, and board have mobility disabilities, use

26 power wheelchairs, and therefore use a wheelchair accessible vehicle if they are traveling in a

27 car. For example, board member Chris Finn uses a motorized wheelchair. He has not

28 downloaded Uber’s app, but would do so if he knew he could count on Uber to provide him with

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

16

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 18 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 transportation to his appointments, including events at CRIL. Currently he relies on getting rides

2 from friends, and on BART, AC Transit, and paratransit to get around, but using these modes of

3 transportation is limiting. Taking paratransit is often an all-day event because of severe delays.

4 Additionally, when the weather is bad, if he does not have transportation already arranged Mr.

5 Finn must sometimes stay at home to avoid damage to his power wheelchair, which means

6 having to miss events, including his duties as a board member of CRIL. Having access to Uber’s

7 on-demand transportation would make a variety of activities more accessible to Mr. Finn,

8 including job opportunities, social gatherings, and events, would save him a huge amount of time

9 going about his daily routine, and enable him to get around more freely and spontaneously.

10

66. Additionally, Mr. Finn has been injured as a direct result of Uber’s discriminatory

11 policies and practices and would have standing to sue in his own right, as would other members

12 of CRIL. CRIL can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are

13 germane to the organization’s purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested,

14 which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.

15

H. Uber Controls the Transportation Service it has Created

16

67. Uber has created a revolutionary new mode of on-demand transportation that has

17 changed the way millions of Americans get around – so much so that the word “Uber” has

18 become synonymous with convenient, reliable, timely, on-demand transportation. Sometimes

19 Uber distances itself from the fundamental role it has played in creating this system by

20 describing itself as merely a broker or middleman, facilitating connections between drivers and

21 riders which might happen anyway. Nothing could be further from the truth. Uber has created

22 and controls its transportation system in every material respect.

23

I. Uber Controls The Drivers And Vehicles

24

68. Uber has created an on-demand transportation service which enables a rider to

25 order a car from anywhere in most urban areas and reliably be picked up within minutes and

26 taken to a specific destination, without having to exchange cash. Uber has carefully created this

27 service by recruiting and retaining a network of drivers who enter into contracts with Uber

28 agreeing to provide rides to Uber’s customers under terms and conditions determined by Uber.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

17

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 19 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Uber has also carefully cultivated a base of customers by offering them reassurances about the

2 safety and reliability of Uber’s transportation. For example Uber runs regular background checks

3 on its drivers8, requires a standard vehicle safety inspection9, monitors the ratings that its drivers

4 receive10, and offers drivers incentives to ensure that there are enough vehicles on the road to

5 meet passenger demand.11

6

69. Individuals who wish to drive for Uber must undergo a driving record check,

7 background check, present their driver’s license, vehicle registration, and driver’s insurance.

8 Uber sets standards for which makes, models, and age of vehicle can be driven in the Uber

9 network. These standards are detailed – but nowhere do they mention wheelchair accessible

10 vehicles. Models must be at least 2002 or later, and in many cases Uber requires much more

11 recent models. See Uber, Vehicle Requirements San Francisco Bay Area,

12 https://www.uber.com/drive/san-francisco/vehicle-requirements. Uber also sets standards for

13 which makes, models, and age of vehicle can be driven for each class of Uber vehicle, such as

14 UberSUV, UberXL, Uber Select and UberBLACK.

15

70. Uber also makes vehicles available to drivers through partnerships with

16 dealerships that offer rental and lease-to-own options to assist its drivers in obtaining vehicles

17 with which to provide Uber transportation services. See Uber, Vehicle Requirements, San

18 Francisco Bay Area, https://www.uber.com/drive/san-francisco/vehicle-requirements/ (“And if

19 you don’t have a car, we can help you get one.”).

20

71. Uber even exercises control over the engineering and manufacture of vehicles for

21 its service. Uber touts its “Advanced Technology Group,” a team that includes hardware and

22 product design engineers. Its goals include “transforming the way the world moves” and

23 “developing long-term technologies that advance Uber’s mission of bringing safe, reliable

24

25 8 CNN.com, “Uber tightens driver background checks,”

26

https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/12/technology/uber-safety-update/index.html?iid=EL, April 12, 2018.

27 9 Uber.com, Vehicle Inspections, https://www.uber.com/drive/san-francisco/inspections/

10 Uber.com, Star Ratings, https://www.uber.com/drive/resources/how-ratings-work/ 28
11 Uber Help, What is surge?, https://help.uber.com/h/e9375d5e-917b-4bc5-8142-23b89a440eec.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

18

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 20 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 transportation to everyone, everywhere.” This work includes self-driving cars and trucks, but not

2 wheelchair-accessible vehicles. See Uber, Advanced Technologies Group,

3 https://www.uber.com/info/atg/.

4

72. Through its driver contract, Uber dictates whether, when, where, and how

5 frequently drivers choose to offer rides in Uber vehicles. Uber exercises exclusive control over

6 termination of Uber drivers, and routinely terminates drivers for several reasons, including for

7 poor ratings from customers or discriminatorily refusing to provide service to customers.

8

73. Uber controls which trip requests it transmits to each of its drivers.

9

74. Uber requires that its drivers meet or exceed the estimated time-of-arrival that

10 Uber generates and provides to each customer.

11

75. Uber limits drivers to shifts of no more than 12 hours, preventing drivers who

12 have driven for long stints from using the app for six hours to prevent dangerous driver fatigue.12

13

76. Uber requires that Uber drivers refrain from smoking while providing Uber

14 services.

15

77. Uber prohibits its drivers from discriminating against people based on race,

16 religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, sex, marital status, gender identity, age or

17 any other characteristic protected under applicable federal or state law.

18

78. In addition, Uber instructs Uber drivers that the share of trip requests that they

19 accept through Uber’s app should be consistently high, and that Uber drivers may not accept

20 street hails from potential passengers.

21

79. Uber controls the safety and quality of the service the drivers provide by closely

22 monitoring its drivers. It issues training and directives concerning other requirements to Uber

23 drivers.

24

80. Uber records many details about the demand-responsive transportation services

25 that its drivers provide, including for each trip: (1) the pickup location, (2) the time of pickup, (3)

26 the drop off location, (4) the time of drop off, (5) the distance traveled, (6) the trip route, (7) the

27 28 12 Uber.com, “Another Step to Prevent Drowsy Driving,”
https://www.uber.com/newsroom/drowsydriving/, February 12, 2018.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

19

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 21 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 trip duration, and (8) the customer’s identity. Uber employees who supervise drivers have easy

2 access to this data.

3

81. Uber monitors its Uber drivers’ performance by asking customers for written

4 feedback, including a driver “rating” of between 1 and 5, via the app, after every ride that a

5 driver provides, and Uber routinely follows up with customers who express dissatisfaction. Uber

6 regularly terminates or suspends Uber drivers whose average customer rating falls below a

7 certain threshold.

8

82. In addition, Uber maintains general commercial liability insurance to cover claims

9 concerning incidents that occur while drivers are providing Uber transportation services.

10

83. Uber tightly controls payment for its Uber transportation services.

11

84. Uber controls the fare charged for each trip through an algorithm which takes

12 account of the distance traveled and duration of the trip, along with the intensity of demand for

13 rides at the time of the ride request.

14

85. Uber controls the supply of drivers by encouraging them to work at particular

15 times (by increasing fares when there is increased demand), by offering them financial rewards

16 for accumulating a large number of trips, and by providing them with information about where

17 they are likely to get more trips or preferential fares. Uber exerts control over how many vehicles

18 provide its service at a given time through carefully calibrated adjustments in its service’s

19 financial incentives. For example, Uber’s “surge” pricing imposes additional charges during

20 high-demand times to “make sure those who need a ride can get one.” See Uber Help, What is

21 surge?, https://help.uber.com/h/e9375d5e-917b-4bc5-8142-23b89a440eec.

22

J. Uber Controls Who Can Ride In An Uber and How

23

86. In addition to carefully controlling the drivers, Uber also controls who may use

24 Uber’s transportation service. In order to use Uber, customers must download Uber’s app and

25 create an account, which requires them to agree to Uber’s terms of service. The customer can

26 then order a ride for themselves or someone else. The entire ride is mediated by Uber from start

27 to finish. A rider could request an Uber, travel to their destination, and pay for it, all without ever

28 speaking to the driver.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

20

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 22 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

87. To call an Uber, the customer opens the Uber app, selects which class of vehicle

2 they want and then submits a request to Uber for a vehicle through the app, either for their own

3 use or for other passengers.

4

88. Uber then identifies a close, available Uber vehicle and then notifies the requester

5 either by text message or the Uber app that a driver has been assigned. The notification includes

6 the driver’s name, customer rating, phone number, vehicle license plate number, make and

7 model of the vehicle, and the driver’s estimated time of arrival. If the customer submitted a

8 desired trip destination, then Uber will provide a fare estimate. The customer can then track the

9 location of the Uber as the driver navigates to the customer’s identified pick-up address. The

10 driver and customer can communicate with each other through Uber’s app.

11

89. Once the Uber arrives, the Uber app notifies the customer, and they and any other

12 associated passengers may then board the vehicle. The driver then begins the trip in the Uber

13 software app and proceeds to the desired destination. If the requesting customer submitted the

14 destination address, the app will supply the driver with turn-by-turn directions to the desired

15 destination

16

90. When the Uber arrives at the desired destination, the driver ends the trip in the

17 Uber’s app. Uber then charges the customer’s credit card for the trip fare. No cash is

18 exchanged. Uber allows the rider and the driver to provide ratings of each other in the app after

19 the ride has concluded.

20

91. Fares for Uber’s transportation services are based on the duration and distance of

21 each trip and other factors such as demand at the time and place of the ride, as determined by

22 Uber’s algorithms. Uber keeps a percentage of each fare.

23

92. Uber compensates its Uber drivers based on the duration and distance of the trips

24 that they provide to customers. Payments are not transferred directly from customers to drivers;

25 rather, Uber collects and holds customer payments, deducts fees, and then later transfers money

26 to drivers. Customers who dispute the fare for a particular trip must contact Uber customer

27 service representatives to request an adjustment to their fares.

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

21

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 23 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

93. Uber closely monitors and controls interactions between Uber drivers and

2 customers.

3

94. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Uber purports to offer the full range of classes of

4 Uber transportation service to the public. Customers can order an Uber at any time of day and in

5 any part of the Bay Area, selecting from a wide range of options including luxury vehicles,

6 standard vehicles, large vehicles, or carpools, which enable them to ride with strangers for a

7 reduced fare. Although Uber advertises UberWAV in the Bay Area, Defendants have chosen not

8 to make wheelchair accessible Ubers available in the same reliable and timely manner as their

9 services for riders who do not need wheelchair accessible Ubers.

10

K. Uber Discriminates Against People Who Need Wheelchair Accessible Ubers.

11

95. Uber provides a valuable transportation alternative to millions of Bay Area

12 residents, allowing people to more easily travel to work, social events, community engagements,

13 appointments, and other destinations, yet Uber excludes people with mobility disabilities from

14 these same benefits of its convenient transportation.

15

96. Uber could end its discrimination against people who use wheelchair accessible

16 vehicles if it chose to do so. In fact it has already begun providing wheelchair accessible Ubers in

17 several major cities. For example, in London, Uber began providing wheelchair accessible Ubers

18 in 2016 through a service called UberACCESS.13 It rolled out this service to six more U.K. cities 19 the following year.14

20

97. Closer to home, Uber has made UberWAVs available in Philadelphia, rolling out

21 a fleet of wheelchair accessible vehicles in June of 2017.15

22

23 13 Uber.com, “Introducing uberWAV: transportation for everyone, everywhere in London,”

24 https://newsroom.uber.com/uk/ldnwav/, May 10, 2016.

14 Uber.com, “Forward-facing, forward thinking: introducing uberACCESS,” 25 https://www.uber.com/en-GB/blog/uber-access-2/, March 23, 2017;TheNextWeb.com, “Uber’s

26

wheelchair-accessible uberACCESS service launches in four new UK markets,” https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/07/14/ubers-wheelchair-accessible-uberaccess-service-

launches-four-new-uk-markets/, July 14, 2017. 27
15 Philly.com, “Uber and Lyft's wheelchair access grows, with room to improve,”

28 http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/ubers-wheelchair-accessibility-grows-withroom-for-improvement-20170706.html, July 6, 2017.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

22

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 24 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

98. However, Uber has not provided wheelchair accessible Ubers in a way which

2 would make Uber’s transportation service fully and equally accessible in the Bay Area.

3

99. Plaintiffs do not here specifically seek an order requiring Uber to purchase

4 vehicles as a way of putting an end to its discriminatory conduct. Given Uber’s extensive control

5 over the operation of the drivers, including through its fare structure, there are many ways Uber

6 can provide relief.

7

100. In previous communications with Uber, Plaintiffs and their counsel have

8 enumerated some of the possible ways that appropriate WAV service could be achieved, and

9 have made numerous requests to Uber to modify its policies to provide full and equal access to

10 its service for riders who need WAVs. Plaintiffs previously sought remedies for Uber’s failure to

11 provide equal access to its service based on California anti-discrimination laws in California

12 state court. In September 2018, the case was precluded from being heard on the merits by state

13 law jurisdictional issues.

14

101. Before the state court litigation began, counsel for Plaintiffs raised concerns about

15 the accessibility of Uber’s service. Several months later, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Uber’s counsel a

16 letter noting the lack of progress on this issue and Plaintiffs initiated the state court action soon

17 thereafter. Throughout the state court litigation, Plaintiffs made overtures to Uber regarding

18 possible modifications to its policies and practices that could result in equivalent service. On

19 September 26, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Fiona Hinze, of Plaintiff ILRC, met with Uber to

20 discuss specific policy modifications Uber could make in order to provide equal access to its

21 service to people who need WAVs. Plaintiffs’ counsel followed up on October 10, 2018 with a

22 list of specific modifications.

23

102. Despite Plaintiffs’ requests over the past year, Uber has not responded with

24 modifications sufficient to provide full and equal access to its transportation services.

25

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

26

Discrimination Prohibited by the Americans With Disabilities Act

(42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq.)

27

103. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding

28 and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

23

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 25 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

104. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the full

2 and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by private entities

3 primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce.

4 42 U.S.C. § 12184.

5

105. Plaintiffs and all members of the class are persons with “disabilities” entitled to

6 protection under the ADA.

7

106. Plaintiffs and members of the putative class, including members of Plaintiffs

8 ILRC and CRIL or participants in their services such as Plaintiffs Julie Fuller and Sascha Bittner,

9 are aware of Defendants’ unlawful actions, and their knowledge of this discrimination has

10 deterred them from using Uber’s transportation service. Moreover, Plaintiffs and members of the

11 putative class, including members of Plaintiffs ILRC and CRIL and participants in their services

12 such as Plaintiff Sascha Bittner, have been and continue to be denied access to Uber’s

13 transportation service on occasions when a friend or colleague has attempted to order an Uber

14 ride for them and found there are no wheelchair accessible Ubers available.

15

107. Public transportation is defined to mean “transportation by bus, rail, or any other

16 conveyance (other than by aircraft) that provides the general public with general or special

17 service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing basis.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(10).

18

108. Defendants provide specified public transportation services within the meaning of

19 the term under Title III on a regular and continuing basis.

20

109. Title III of the ADA also prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the

21 full and equal enjoyment of services provided by places of public accommodations. 42 U.S.C.

22 § 12182.

23

110. Defendants operate a public accommodation subject to Title III’s

24 nondiscrimination requirements. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, 12182.

25

111. Defendants operate a “travel service” as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12181.

26

112. Defendants’ operations affect interstate commerce, including by providing

27 transportation across state lines.

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

24

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 26 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

113. Defendants discriminate against Plaintiffs and members of the putative class by

2 denying them full and equal enjoyment of Uber’s goods, services, facilities, privileges,

3 advantages, and/or accommodations in violation of Title III of the ADA. Defendants have failed

4 to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, or procedures, provide auxiliary

5 aids and services, and remove barriers in order to afford full and equal access to their service to

6 Plaintiffs and members of the putative class.

7

114. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief remedying the discrimination

8 under 42 U.S.C. § 12188. Unless the Court issues injunctive relief to halt Uber’s unlawful

9 practices, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm.

10

115. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.

11

116. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

12

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

13

Declaratory Relief on Behalf of Plaintiffs

14

117. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all foregoing and subsequent allegations as

15 though fully set forth herein.

16

118. An actual controversy exists between the parties. Plaintiffs contend, and are

17 informed and believe that Defendants deny, that by failing to adopt policies and practices that

18 make WAVs available through its service, Defendants are failing to comply with applicable

19 laws, including but not limited to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§

20 12181, et seq.

21

119. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that the

22 parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.

23

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the relief set forth below.

24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

25

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief as follows:

26

1. For an order certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

27 Procedure 23(b)(2), and appointing Plaintiffs as the representatives of the Class and their counsel

28 as Class Counsel;

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

25

1

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 23 Filed 01/11/19 Page 27 of 27

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

2. For an order finding and declaring that the acts and practices of Uber as set forth

2 herein are unlawful, unfair, and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181,

3 et seq.;

4

3. For a permanent injunction pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

5 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., to ensure that individuals who use wheelchairs, including Plaintiffs, are

6 able to use Uber’s service on a basis that is full and equal to that which is available to other

7 members of the general public;

8

4. For an award of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the filing and

9 prosecution of this action, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. §12188; and

10

5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11

12 DATED: January 10, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

13
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 14

15

16

Stuart Seaborn

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ILRC, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-06503-RS

Amended Complaint

26

1

 
 Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 48 Filed 07/30/19 Page 1 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCE

10

CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06503-RS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DENYING DISCOVERY MOTIONS.

15

I. INTRODUCTION

16

Plaintiffs1 bring this ADA action on behalf of Bay Area residents who were deterred from

17 using the Uber App because of the inferior and discriminatory service it allegedly provides to

18 wheelchair users. In February 2019, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and

19 Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, “Uber”) moved to compel arbitration of this action. That motion

20 was denied without prejudice. Uber was, however, granted leave to conduct discovery regarding

21 the existence of an agency relationship between Plaintiffs and persons who tested the Uber App

22 prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

23

Plaintiffs now move (1) for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and (2) to

24 quash discovery requests propounded by Uber. Uber opposes both motions and moves (1) to

25 compel Plaintiffs to respond to the aforementioned discovery requests, and (2) to compel

26

27 1 Plaintiffs in this matter are: Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco; Community 28 Resources for Independent Living; Judith Smith; Julie Fuller; and Sascha Bittner.

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 48 Filed 07/30/19 Page 2 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to compel arbitration is

2 granted. All other motions are denied as moot.

3

II. BACKGROUND

4

A. Procedural Background

5

This action was originally filed in federal court in October 2018, however the Amended

6 Complaint filed on January 11, 2019 is the operative complaint. On February 4, 2019, Uber moved

7 to compel arbitration based on, among other things, the existence of a purported agency

8 relationship between Plaintiffs and persons who tested the Uber App prior to the filing of this

9 action. The motion was dismissed without prejudice on May 6, 2019. Uber was, however, granted
10 leave to conduct limited discovery regarding “(1) the existence of a possible agency relationship
11 between Plaintiffs and the testers, and (2) whether these testers agreed to Uber’s mandatory
12 arbitration clause.” Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration 1. These discovery efforts
13 quickly ran aground. While Plaintiffs initially responded to several of Uber’s interrogatories, they
14 now seek to quash Uber’s remaining discovery requests. Uber opposes this motion to quash and
15 moves to compel Plaintiffs to respond.
Plaintiffs also move for leave to file an SAC in order to “clarify the facts on which 16
Plaintiffs rely to establish their claims in this action.” Mot. Leave to File SAC 1. They specifically 17
seek to remove any reference to testing of the Uber App from their complaint. In an order issued 18
on June 24, 2019, the court observed that it “appear[ed] appropriate to revisit Uber’s motion to 19
compel alongside Plaintiffs’ motion to quash and motion for leave to amend.” Order 1. 20
Accordingly, that order set a deadline for Uber to renew its motion to compel arbitration, should it 21
so choose. On July 1, 2019, Uber renewed its motion to compel arbitration. The matter was set for 22
hearing on the same day as the motion for leave to amend and the competing discovery motions. 23
B. Factual Background 24
This action arises from Uber’s alleged provision of inferior and discriminatory service to 25
people who use wheelchairs. Although Uber offers an option called “uberWAV” which allows 26
customers in the Bay Area to request a ride from a wheelchair accessible vehicle, Plaintiffs 27

28 CASE NO. 18-cv-06503-RS
2

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 48 Filed 07/30/19 Page 3 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 contend this option has a longer wait time than other Uber services, is often unavailable, and—

2 unlike other Uber services—cannot be booked in advance. Plaintiffs, who claim never to have

3 downloaded the Uber App, base these allegations on incidents they either witnessed firsthand or

4 heard about from friends and family.

5

Despite the fact Plaintiffs have never personally downloaded the Uber App, the Amended

6 Complaint states in pertinent part: “Plaintiffs tested a number of central locations around the Bay

7 Area daily in September 2018 and October 2018. In Alameda County, a total of 60 tests during
8 business hours reflected an average estimated wait time for an [u]berWAV of 29.7 minutes.”
9 Amend. Compl. ¶ 31. The Amended Complaint does not explain how Plaintiffs went about testing
10 wait times without downloading the app and agreeing to the Terms of Use. Plaintiffs have since
11 conceded that the person responsible for testing the Uber App was in fact Plaintiffs’ agent. This
12 agent was a paralegal at Disability Rights Advocates by the name of Carson Turner. Plaintiffs also
13 admit that Ms. Turner agreed to Uber’s Terms of Use, but emphasize that she downloaded the app
“for personal use prior to the existence of th[e] agency relationship.” Mot. Quash 1. 14
III. LEGAL STANDARD 15
A. Motion for Leave to Amend 16
Under Rule 15(a), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 17
days of service of the pleading or 21 days of service of a responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion. 18
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). After that, amendment is permitted only with the opposing party’s 19
written consent or by leave of the court. Id. 15(a)(2). In general, courts “should freely give leave 20
when justice so requires.” Id. This rule is applied with “extreme liberality,” Eminence Capital, 21
LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003), and nonmoving parties bear the burden 22
of demonstrating why leave to amend should not be granted, Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott 23
Laboratories, 127 F.R.D. 529, 530-31 (N.D. Cal. 1989). In deciding whether leave to amend 24
should be granted, courts consider (1) bad faith on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay; (3) 25
prejudice to the opposing party; and (4) futility of the proposed amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 26
U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 27

28 CASE NO. 18-cv-06503-RS
3

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 48 Filed 07/30/19 Page 4 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

B. Motion to Compel Arbitration

2

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) “provides that any arbitration agreement within its

3 scope ‘shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,’” and “permits a party ‘aggrieved by the

4 alleged . . . refusal of another to arbitrate’ to petition any federal district court for an order

5 compelling arbitration in the manner provided for in the agreement.” Chiron Corp. v. Ortho

6 Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 4) (omission in

7 original). The FAA “leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead

8 mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which

9 an arbitration agreement has been signed.” Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218

10 (1985).

11

IV. DISCUSSION

12

A. Motion for Leave to Amend

13

Plaintiffs proposed SAC removes all allegations relating to the testing of the Uber App by

14 Plaintiffs’ agents. The purpose of this amendment is “to clarify for Defendants and the Court, that,
15 irrespective of an agency relationship between Plaintiffs and the testers,” agency doctrine does not
16 bind Plaintiffs to the arbitration agreement entered by the testers because “the injuries at issue are
not dependent on the conduct of the testers and occurred independent of any agency relationship.” 17
Mot. Leave to File SAC 2. Uber opposes Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an SAC on the 18
grounds that it is the product of bad faith. There is, however, no need to reach the parties’ 19
competing arguments regarding whether Plaintiffs are acting in bad faith because the motion 20
suffers from another, ultimately fatal, flaw: it is futile. The purpose of this motion is to try to 21
bolster Plaintiffs’ argument that they are not bound by the arbitration agreement entered into by 22
Ms. Turner. As explained below, this argument fails regardless of whether they are permitted to 23
file an SAC. Accordingly, this motion is denied as moot. 24
B. Motion to Compel Arbitration 25
It is well-settled under California law that a principal may be bound by an agreement made 26
by an agent within the scope of the agency relationship. See Mesler v. Bragg Mgmt., 39 Cal. 3d
27

28 CASE NO. 18-cv-06503-RS
4

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 48 Filed 07/30/19 Page 5 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 290, 303 (Cal. 1985); Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. Cryer, 6 Cal. 2d 485, 489 (Cal.

2 1936). Arbitration agreements are no exception. See Keller Constr. Co v. Kashani, 220 Cal. App.

3 3d 222, 225-28 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (collecting cases). Therefore, a plaintiff who dispatches an

4 agent to deal with a defendant on his or her behalf is bound by an arbitration agreement entered

5 into by the agent in the course of those dealings. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2330 (“An agent represents

6 his principal for all purposes within the scope of his actual or ostensible authority, and all the

7 rights and liabilities which would accrue to the agent from transactions within such limit, if they

8 had been entered into on his own account, accrue to the principal.”).

9

The existence of an agency relationship is a question of fact. Larson v. Speetjens, No. 05-

10 3176, 2006 WL 2567873, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2006). No formalities are required to form an

11 agency relationship, rather “conduct alone can be sufficient to create such a relationship.” Id.

12 (citing Malloy v. Fong, 37 Cal. 2d 356, 372 (Cal. 1951)). Where a person indisputably acted on a

13 plaintiff’s behalf, that person must be considered the plaintiff’s agent. Tamsco Properties, LLC v.
Langemeier, 597 F. App'x 428, 429 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that because “Appellants admitted 14
that the affiliated individuals who attended the conferences did so on their behalf,” the attendees 15
must be considered the Appellants’ agents). 16
Plaintiffs concede that Ms. Turner was acting as their agent when she tested the wait times 17
for the Uber App’s various services. They nonetheless maintain that they are not bound by the 18
arbitration agreement for two reasons. First, they argue the arbitration clause does not apply here 19
because the agent’s conduct was not the predicate for Plaintiffs’ claims. In their view, “the 20
relevant inquiry is whether the injury at issue is derivative of the agent’s conduct.” Opp. Renewed 21
Mot. Compel 2. Plaintiffs, however, fail to identify any authority which endorses this view. 22
Instead, they distill this rule from the facts of various agency cases. 23
For example, Plaintiffs contend that in Tamsco Properties, LLC v. Langemeier, 597 Fed.
24 App’x 428, 429 (9th Cir. 2015), “the claims arose from the purchase of investments, which was
25 done in reliance on information the plaintiffs would not have obtained if their agents had not
26 accepted the arbitration clause.” Opp. Renewed Mot. Compel 3. Similarly, in County of Contra

27 Costa v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 47 Cal. App. 4th 237, 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996),

28 CASE NO. 18-cv-06503-RS
5

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 48 Filed 07/30/19 Page 6 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 “the claims arose from the provision of medical care which would not have been obtained if the

2 agent had not accepted the arbitration clause.” Opp. Renewed Mot. Compel 3. Plaintiffs’ attempt

3 to derive a new rule from the facts of these cases is unconvincing. The conventional test for

4 determining whether Plaintiffs are bound by the arbitration agreement turns on whether the agent

5 was acting within the scope of the agency when he or she agreed to be bound. The cases discussed

6 in Plaintiffs’ opposition to their renewed motion provide no meaningful basis to deviate from this

7 rule.

8

Second, Plaintiffs contend that the agency exception cannot apply here because it would

9 lead to an inequitable result. For example, Plaintiffs argue, they could be forced to arbitrate any

10 claim against Uber “no matter how attenuated or entirely unrelated to the agent’s actions” it may

11 be. Opp. Renewed Mot. Compel 3. The scope of the arbitration agreement is, however, a separate

12 legal question. Here, the question is whether Plaintiffs are bound by the agreement at all. Under

13 agency doctrine, Plaintiffs are bound to the same extent as the agent who acted on their behalf.

While Plaintiffs argue that it would be unfair to force them to arbitrate, for example, a tort action 14
against Uber that was completely unrelated to the testing of the Uber App by Ms. Turner, this 15
equity argument applies with equal force regardless of whether an agent was used. 16
Finally, Plaintiffs contend that it would be absurd to hold that they “somehow lost the 17
right” to pursue their claims in federal court as soon as Ms. Turner used the Uber App to gather 18
evidence. Opp. Renewed Mot. Compel 5. At oral argument, Plaintiffs specifically argued that 19
granting Uber’s motion could lead to a situation where a plaintiff seeking to sue Uber could be 20
thrown out of court simply because the law firm representing him or her used Uber to deliver 21
chambers copies to the court. Although the chambers copy hypothetical is concerning, it is a far 22
cry from the present situation. Here, Plaintiffs dispatched their agents to affirmatively test the
23 Uber application in order to bolster their claim of discrimination. Plaintiffs then proceeded to file a
24 complaint that specifically referenced the data they collected from the Uber App. Under such
25 circumstances, there is nothing inequitable about binding Plaintiffs to the agreement which gained

26 them access to the Uber App in the first place.

27

In sum, the central inquiry is whether Ms. Turner was acting within the scope of the

28 CASE NO. 18-cv-06503-RS
6

Case 3:18-cv-06503-RS Document 48 Filed 07/30/19 Page 7 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 agency when she tested the Uber App. Plaintiffs concede that she was.2 There is no dispute that

2 Uber’s terms and conditions agreement is a “a contract evidencing a transaction involving

3 commerce” subject to the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 2. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are bound by the arbitration

4 agreement to the same extent as their agent. The motion to compel arbitration is therefore 5 granted.3

6

V. CONCLUSION

7

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to compel arbitration is granted and the action

8 is, accordingly, stayed. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and the parties competing discovery 9 motions are denied.

10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 13 Dated: July 30, 2019 14 15

______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 2 The parties’ briefing on other associated motions raised the possibility that Plaintiffs may not be 23 bound by the arbitration agreement because Ms. Turner downloaded the Uber App and agreed to
the Terms of Use before she became Plaintiffs’ agent. Plaintiffs, however, do not press this 24 argument in their opposition to the renewed motion. In any event, Uber has presented evidence
that the Terms of Use state that “by accessing or using the Services, you [the user] confirm your 25 agreement to be bound by these Terms.” Barajas Decl., Ex. 1 § 1. Accordingly, it would appear
Ms. Turner reaffirmed the contract each time she opened the Uber App.
26 3 The parties’ competing discovery motions are denied as moot in light of the present order 27 compelling arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims.

28 CASE NO. 18-cv-06503-RS
7