At the beginning of the summer, I blogged about possible threats under the current Administration to the new ADA Title II web accessibility regulation. This short blog post reveals the other side of the coin and suggest that, at least as far as disability rights are concerned, we may have less to fear than in other areas of civil rights enforcement.
This post isn't directly tied to digital accessibility law and policy. Instead, it talks about accessibility at a silghtly higher level.
The Uber Complaint
On Thursday, the Justice Department filed its complaint against Uber Technologies in the U.S. District Court for Northern California. The complaint alleged that, as a company that is "primarily engaged in the business of transporting people," Uber violated the ADA by discriminating against people with disabilities. This discrimination included refusing to pick up people with disabilities, harassment aimed at passengers with disabilities, and other forms of discrimination.
The interesting part to me and a lot of other civil rights attorneys isn't what it said. It's not surprising that drivers for a ridesharing company discriminate against people with disabilities-- and that a lawsuit by the Department of Justice is a great way to correct that discrimination. Instead, the interesting part was that the lawsuit was filed at all. After all, this Administration had threatened to dismantle disability rights by rescinding the new construction requirements for federal grantees under Section 504.
An Insider's Perspective: Disability Rights is Different
When I worked in the Disability Rights Section, I went through three different adminstrations. Two administrations were Republican and one was Democrat. I've always been a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and sometimes I'm surprised that I don't bleed blue when I cut my finger. Each time I worked under a Republican administration, we all feared that disability rights would get undercut. Each time I worked under a Democratic administration, we hoped that disability rights would get stronger.
The result? Despites our fears and wishes, nothing really changed. Democratic adminstrations never pushed disability rights as strongly as other areas of civil rights and Republicans never undercut it as much as other areas. While the rest of the Civil Rights Division had huge swings in staff and enforcement, DRS's workflow kept relatively steady. As we used to say in my old office, "Republicans get disabilities too."
This isn't to say that disability rights enforcement is the same under this administration as it was under the Biden or Obama administrations. By suing Uber, however, they are showing that they are not using the ADA to target only political enemies or suggesting that the ADA shouldn't be enforced.
It's Not All Rainbows and Unicorns
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting things are fine in this administration. What I'm saying is that, at least sometimes, they appear to be using disability rights in a fair and impartial way to alleviate discrimination. I'd be a fool to suggest that this will always be the norm. If and when DRS starts weaponizing the ADA against the administration's political opponents or undercutting the regulations that protect people with disabilities, we all need to call them out. As long as they keep up level-headed and objective enforcement activities like the Uber complaint, however, they're on the right track and we should all support them.
I can't look into a crystal ball and tell you what the future will bring. Also, remember that this is a Title III case, so it doesn't really say much about what the Administration thinks about Title II-- and particularly new rules like the Title II web accessibility regulation. It does give me cause to be cautiously optimistic, however, that the new regulation won't be weakened or rescinded. The real test will come in April 2026 when the new regulation goes into force.
Geeky Side Note: How is an Uber Car a Place of Public Accommodation?
Geeky readers of this blog may ask, "how is an uber car a place of public accommodation under Title III?"
Answer? They aren't.
In countless blog posts, we've talked about the nexus test and how websites need to have a "nexus" to a bricks and mortar place of public accomodation. As we know, Title III of the ADA generally prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities by places of public accommodation. While taxi cabs and Uber cars are certainly physical places, they aren't places of public accommodation because they aren't included in the twelve categories that comprise the definition of "place of public accommodation."
There are a few narrow areas that are covered in Title III but aren't places of public accommodation. One of them are "facilities," which still need to follow the new construction requirements. Another one is "private entity that is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people." Uber cars fall into this last category. This area is subject to regulations by the Department of Transportation-- not the Department of Justice. DOJ is responsible for enforcement and litigation, so that's why Uber was sued by DOJ.
Disclaimer
Nothing in this post should be interpreted as legal advice or as forming an attorney-client relationship. It is offered for educational purposes only. You should always contact a qualified attorney in your area to discuss your legal rights and responsibilities.
Want to See More Content Like This?
Want the latest blog posts, videos, white papers, and announcements? Sign up for our mailing list and stay in the loop!
We're Here to Help When You're Ready
Take a deep breath. Then feel free to reach out to our team when you're ready to discuss your accessibility needs.
0 comments on “Disability Rights Enforcement 2025: The Uber Complaint”