A legal push to require Uber to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles was rejected by a judge in California.
The US Constitution prohibits discrimination against individuals based on their disabilities. But a federal judge in California has ruled that Uber's inability to provide wheelchair accessibility in all of its US markets does not violate this federal law.
The California judge's decision serves as a win for Uber, which has been heavily criticized by disability advocates for its inability to provide wheelchair accessibility in all cities where it operates in the US, The Verge reported. Moreover, the issue arose when two motorized wheelchair users in New Orleans, Louisiana and Jackson, Mississippi filed a lawsuit against the ride-hailing service over the lack of accessibility services in their respective cities.
The plaintiffs both use wheelchairs that cannot be folded and placed in a trunk. Both claim that Uber violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which bans businesses from discriminating against people based on their abilities.
Uber Defends Itself in Lawsuit Claiming Discrimination Against the Disable
The mobility service provider, which was founded in March 2009 by StumbleUpon founder Garrett Camp and Red Swoosh co-founder Travis Kalanick, argued that accessibility programs would be too expensive to operate. Uber estimated that it would cost a "bare minimum" of $800,000 in New Orleans annually or $400 per ride, and $550,000 in Jackson annually, or about $1,000 per ride if they partnered with commercial providers of vehicles with wheelchair accessibility.
These estimates were based on 16 hours of service on weekdays and 10 hours on weekends, ABC News reported. Even with just three vehicles with wheelchair accessibility providing rides at any given time, it will not be able to fulfill all wheelchair-accessible ride requests.
Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the federal court in San Francisco, California, ruled in favor of Uber, saying that the plaintiffs provided "scant evidence" that Uber would be able to conduct a cost-effective wheelchair-accessible service in New Orleans or Jackson. The California judge added that even if the ride-hailing service provided trips with wheelchair accessibility, disabled passengers will still have to wait for a "significant" amount of time.
"The anticipated cost here is too high for the limited service that would result, making the proposed modification unreasonable," Judge Seeborg wrote.
Read Also: Uber Files: Here are the Big Revelations That We Have Learned From the Leak
California Judge Points Out Flaw in Uber's Argument
Despite having ruled in favor of Uber, Judge Seeborg had an issue with Uber's argument that they are excused from providing wheelchair accessibility in their rides because it had done a "fair share" of providing service in other cities. In cities such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Boston, Uber does offer wheelchair accessibility in their rides.
Judge Seeborg explained that Uber was correct in saying that they cannot take the same action of implementing wheelchair accessibility for rides in all cities just because it was available in a few cities. However, he took issue with their use of the term "fair share" because it implied that wheelchair accessible vehicle users are "due a finite number of resources." He noted that federal law evaluates every proposed modification to any service based on its "reasonableness."
The plaintiffs' attorneys maintained that Uber has a "deep-rooted accessibility problem" and considers accessibility merely as an "afterthought."
