National Federation of the Blind of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Settled Dec 2016. Uber required to enforce its service-animal anti-discrimination policy nationwide, track complaints, and remove drivers who refuse service to blind riders with guide dogs. Court retains ongoing jurisdiction. Report current discrimination incidents.
What this case is about
This was a federal class-action lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc. and its UberX subsidiary by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), its California affiliate, and three individual blind riders — Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, and Michael Pedersen. They sued in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is settled and now in compliance phase. Plaintiffs alleged that UberX drivers were routinely refusing to transport blind riders accompanied by guide dogs or other service animals, and that Uber wasn't taking adequate steps to stop the discrimination. Drivers cited allergies, fear of dogs, religious objections, or just refused without explanation. The case settled in December 2016 with comprehensive injunctive relief: Uber agreed that drivers must transport service-animal users; knowing refusals get the driver permanently removed; allergy or fear of dogs is not a valid excuse; Uber must track every complaint and report aggregated data to class counsel; NFB runs a testing program; a third-party monitor oversees compliance. If an Uber driver refuses to take you because of your service animal today, you should still report it. Plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates, TRE Legal, and Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld.
Who may qualify
This settlement protects blind and visually disabled people nationwide who use service animals and use (or want to use) Uber. You can report a current Uber service-animal discrimination incident if: - You're blind or visually disabled. - You use a guide dog or other trained service animal. - An Uber driver refused to pick you up because of your service animal, drove away when seeing your dog, asked you to "leave the dog behind," charged you an improper "cleaning fee" because of your dog, or otherwise treated you differently because of the service animal. You don't have to be a class member from the original 2014-2016 case. Note: this case is about Uber specifically. Lyft has its own separate cases and obligations.
What helps your case
Documentation supporting incident reporting: - Uber trip history records (downloadable from rider account) establishing the ride request, driver assignment, and cancellation/refusal. - Driver identification (name and vehicle data are displayed in the rider app). - Contemporaneous notes or recordings of driver statements regarding the service animal. - Screenshots of in-app reporting and Uber's response. - Medical or rehabilitation documentation establishing legal blindness and service-animal use (treating physician, vocational rehabilitation, or service-animal training organization records). - Records of any cleaning-fee assessments or other discriminatory charging. - Records of any "ghost cancellation" patterns (driver accepts ride, sees rider with dog, cancels).
How to document what happened
For prospective documentation of service-animal access incidents: At request: - Activate any service-animal notification feature in the Uber app to establish notice. - Preserve the trip-request screenshots (driver name, vehicle, ETA). At cancellation/refusal: - Capture cancellation screenshots immediately; the in-app cancellation reason (if displayed) is probative. - Record (audio) the driver's explanation if curbside refusal, where lawful. - Document time, location, and any witnesses. Post-incident: - File in-app report immediately; preserve Uber's response. - Preserve all rider-app data (trip history, payment records). - Memorialize a contemporaneous narrative within 24 hours; details fade rapidly. Pattern documentation: - Track all incidents over time, even if no single one feels significant. Pattern evidence strengthens both settlement-enforcement and individual claims. - Compare across drivers, times of day, geographic areas — emerging patterns are useful to class counsel and the testing program. Cleaning-fee charges: - Screenshot any cleaning-fee notice. Service-animal-related cleaning fees are barred by the settlement.
What if you don’t have documentation?
Reports may be made without contemporaneous documentation. Uber maintains backend trip and cancellation records subpoenable for any enforcement proceeding. Reporting channels: - In-app reporting system (Uber required to maintain and respond per settlement). - NFB testing program (testing@nfb.org). - DOJ Civil Rights Division administrative complaint under 28 C.F.R. § 36.502 (ADA.gov). - Class counsel (Disability Rights Advocates, dralegal.org). - State civil-rights agencies in applicable jurisdictions (CA CRD, NY DHR, etc.). - Direct settlement-enforcement notice to neutral monitor (formerly retired Judge Margaret A. Nagle; check with class counsel for current monitor identity).
What this case doesn’t cover
Scope limitations: - Binds Uber Technologies, Inc. and affiliates only. Lyft (subject to separate litigation, including the recently consolidated multi-district matter), traditional taxis, and microtransit operators require separate enforcement. - Limited to the rideshare transportation context. Uber's non-rider businesses (Uber Eats, Uber Freight, Jump bicycles, etc.) are not within settlement scope. - Covers trained service animals as defined under 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Emotional support animals, untrained companion animals, and non-canine animals (with limited exceptions for miniature horses under DOT regulations) are not within settlement coverage. - Title III generally does not provide compensatory damages; available remedies under federal law are injunctive plus attorneys' fees. Statutory damages may be available under the California Unruh Act ($4,000 per offense) and analogous state statutes (NYCHRL, MA PAA). - The settlement focuses on driver-level discrimination. Uber's overall service-design accessibility (app screen-reader compatibility, driver-rider communication, etc.) may have separate Title III implications not pleaded here. For barriers outside scope: - Lyft: separate DRA-led litigation paths and DOJ complaints. - Other rideshare/microtransit: DOJ administrative complaints under § 36.502. - Non-rideshare service-animal denials: separate Title III actions in the relevant public-accommodation context.
Legal theory
ADA Title III + Unruh Civil Rights Act
Named defendants
- Uber Technologies, Inc.
Case facts
- Type
- Class action
- Affected states
- Nationwide
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
- Docket
- 3:14-cv-04086
- Filed
- 2014-09-09
Who to contact
Check who each contact can help before you call — most of them cover one place or one group of people.
Lawyers on this case
Disability Rights Advocates
Melissa Riess
Taking enquiries about this case.
Phone (510) 665-8644
Anywhere in the US, for blind riders travelling with a service animal who were refused an Uber. Report the denial to Uber as well.
Lawyers on this case
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP
Phone (415) 433-6830
101 Mission Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
Co-counsel monitoring the Uber settlement nationwide.
Key dates
- Status
- Compliance phase; ongoing monitoring
- Initial term
- 3.5 years from 2017
- Complaint filed
- 2014-09-09
- Judgment entered
- 2016-12-15
- Court jurisdiction
- Ongoing as of 2020-07-20
- DOJ Statement of Interest
- 2014-12-23
- Settlement final approval
- 2016-12-06