The Justice Department Says in New Lawsuit That Uber's Wait Fees Discriminate Against the Disabled
The government argues that the company is violating the ADA by charging wait fees to disabled customers who take longer to board vehicles.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing Uber over its policy of charging riders a fee if they make their driver wait more than two minutes. The claim? The DOJ says this is a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) because the fees have also been applied to disabled riders who, because of their disabilities, take more time to reach and enter their vehicles.
"People with disabilities deserve equal access to all areas of community life, including the private transportation services," said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in a press release. The lawsuit sends "a powerful message that Uber cannot penalize passengers with disabilities simply because they need more time to get into a car."
Uber has countered by saying that it regularly waives fees for disabled riders and that it was already in discussions with the DOJ about amending its wait fee policy further to address "concerns and confusion."
"Wait time fees are charged to all riders to compensate drivers after two minutes of waiting, but were never intended for riders who are ready at their designated pickup location but need more time to get into the car," said Uber spokesperson Noah Edwardsen in an email, saying the company "fundamentally disagree[s]" that its policies violate the ADA. He called the lawsuit "surprising and disappointing."
The DOJ lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday, cites the stories of two anonymous disabled people as evidence of the discriminatory effect of Uber's wait fees.
That includes a woman with quadriplegia who was charged wait fees for the daily Uber rides she'd take from her apartment in downtown Louisville, Kentucky, to the nearby University of Louisville, where she was participating in a yearlong rehabilitation program. The complaint says that she noticed the fees after several months of taking Uber rides, but that despite informing Uber of her disability, a company employee said the fees were automatic and would not be waived.
The lawsuit also cites the experience of a New York City man who uses a wheelchair and was charged wait fees by Uber for the extra time he took getting into vehicles. The man asked for and received refunds from Uber for these fees, but was later informed that he had hit the maximum number of wait fee refunds the company would provide.
The DOJ lawsuit argues that these fees discriminate against the disabled either by charging them more for a service they regularly use or by deterring them from riding with Uber at all.
"Potential Uber passengers with disabilities know of Uber's wait time fees and will not use Uber because of those fees," reads the lawsuit.
It's not clear how much of a financial burden these wait fees impose. The DOJ includes no numbers either for how much the individuals in its lawsuit paid in fees, or how much in fees disabled riders might be paying in general. Uber says that the average wait fee charged to riders was less than 60 cents in 2020, although the fees vary by location.
The fact that the first woman cited in the DOJ lawsuit didn't notice the wait fees she was being charged on twice-daily rides until several months later suggests the burden wasn't that significant.
The Justice Department's lawsuit also slightly tips its hand by saying that some disabled people choose not to ride with Uber because of the fees. Clearly, those folks have other transportation options they can use. The cost and inconvenience of switching to those alternatives would presumably be less than the wait fees they were previously being charged.
One could make the argument that Uber is not discriminating against disabled riders simply by not exempting them from a general wait fee policy intended to compensate drivers for the time they spend idling before a ride starts.
That's kind of a moot point, as Uber also this past week has started automatically waiving wait fees for riders who self-certify as disabled.
With that explicit exemption in place, it's hard to see what exactly the DOJ lawsuit is supposed to accomplish other than perhaps grab headlines and get the department credit for policy changes Uber has already made.
It doesn't even appear that there would be a big financial windfall from the government in this case. The New York Times reports that Lyft's more explicitly discriminatory policy of allowing drivers to deny rides to people in wheelchairs ended in the company paying a $40,000 civil penalty and between $4,000–30,000 in compensation to four riders.
Ride-sharing services would seem to be a major mobility improvement for those with physical disabilities that prevent them from driving, who are ill-served by public transportation, and who might not have been able to easily afford pricey pre-Uber taxi and car services.
Yet it's these same ride-sharing services that the Justice Department is deciding to spend its time and your money going after for not being accommodating of the disabled.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Americans With Disabilities Act, is there anything it can't do?
Yeah. Park some distance from a store or take the stairs.
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily now . simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.
Try now……………… Visit Here
Seriously paycheck of $450,000. I didn’t believe it was true but all I had to do was travel to Tijuana, change my name to Juan Chavez then walk north.
I didn't even have to change my name.
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.AFg Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now.............PAYBUZZ
Thanks for the laugh. When I was in college I got the job of designing the layout for a new computer lab. When I submitted my layout I was told that it was unacceptable because there were no wheelchair accessible computers. The Lab was to be on the third floor of a building with no elevators. The building was grandfathered in before ADA.
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.AZr Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site and visit tabs( Home, Media, Tech )
For more details..............Pays24
This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company AQz now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.
For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH
If you are a website owner, you know the importance of an engaging website. Your website is where potential clients make decisions about working with you; they want to connect with you, learn about your offerings, and find out if your services are a good fit for their needs. It’s important for site visitors to engage with your content. You want them to feel a connection, click around, stay on your site and ultimately, book your services.
And do you know that people are making thousands of dollars by offering lead-generating video quizzes, polls & survey building services? Because people doing business are well aware that Quizzes engage your users and prospective buyers helping them to make buying decisions.
But the good news is that you don’t have to scratch your head where and how to create compelling Video Quizzes, Video Polls & Video Surveys. The unseen solution to creating lead-generating Video Quizzes, Polls & Surveys is right here in the product I am going to review today. It is called QuizStudio.
QuizStudio is an advanced AI-powered SaaS that creates attention-grabbing quizzes, polls, and survey campaigns to engage your end-users easily. And once they are hooked to you, there is a higher possibility of those visitors becoming paying customers.
check more: https://bonuses-review.com/quiz-studio-oto/
Years ago Reason did an article on the ADA, and it found the law made it worse for the disabled, with even fewer getting hired as employers avoid lawsuits and/or hiring people who just don't show up to work due to their disability. Typical unintended consequences of social engineering law.
The ADA is simply more government control over commerce, in the name of unfairness (where bureaucrats decide what is "fair" regardless of what an employer and employee want). Let's go back to where employers hired disabled people, for what they could do, at a profit for the employer. We don't need more alcoholic oil tanker captains, kept on the job because of their alcoholism disability, nor will you find me hiring a blind taxi driver any time soon either, unless that guy runs a fleet of self driving taxis from his computer.
Almost as awesome as the Endangered Species Act.
Way, way more awesome, as ADA produces tons and tons of construction jobs, whereas the Endangered Species Act mostly does the opposite.
Does this smell like a taxicab authority inspired action? Unions really hate Uber.
Uber can serve the disabled much more effectively than the cabs, although in Vegas, it seems the cab companies have improved to compete.
Does this smell like a taxicab authority inspired action?
Why yes, yes it does.
Didn't we have a commenter earlier mention that anything can be a lawsuit against the disabled? Decorations =discriminating against the blind
That was me in the mandate-mandate thread.
It's getting to the point where you don't even want to joke around anymore because reality just runs right past it in record time.
So, what is the Lyft driver supposed to do if they don't have a vehicle big enough for a wheelchair? Is the Lyft driver responsible for stowing and retrieving the chair? This policy would seem to discriminate against Lyft drivers with a disability which causes them to be unable to lift a wheelchair.
This policy would seem to discriminate against Lyft drivers with a disability which causes them to be unable to lift a wheelchair.
That's why all ride services need to be conducted with quadriplegic-operable vehicles that have built-in wheelchair lifts.
Boom! Problem solved.
"Yet it's these same ride-sharing services that the Justice Department is deciding to spend its time and your money going after for not being accommodating of the disabled."
Dont worry they are also going after parents who want to know what goes on in schools, people that support non progressive polititions, and jounolists that don't support Gov narrarative.
Disabled folks want government to lyft this uber discriminatory fee from what ride sharing companies can charge them?
They can all go to hail.
People with disabilities are apparently not required to shoulder the burden of their condition - instead the rest of us must?
See Texas mask mandates.
People with disabilities are apparently not required to shoulder the burden of their condition - instead the rest of us must?
We need a massive nation-wide effort to make them feel like they don't need to be accommodated.
This is indeed the problem. Reasonable accommodation = 10X what it would've cost to just reimburse with cash for whatever productivity they've lost due to their disability, because doing so would be stigmatizing or at least demeaning. They have to be made to feel like they're not the recipients of pity tribute. So in school, the whole classroom has to be reoriented for their needs, because if a personal arrangement were made for them like tutoring, they would feel left out and "special" in a bad way. At work, things might have to be arranged to, in effect, lose more money on them so they can "make the business money", i.e. fool them into thinking they're making the business money, because just giving them cash to stay out of everyone's sight would be demeaning.
But feelings!
And we call them "differently abled" now!
People with disabilities are apparently not required to shoulder the burden of their condition - instead the rest of us must?
The idea that you have an automatic right to other people's time/property/money because you are disabled and they are not is deeply offensive to me and makes me sort of hate disabled people. It's weird too because I have a natural inclination to be sympathetic to disabled people when I see them, and we all *could* become disabled people some day through acts of god, or accidents or what have you. I do hope that the those (be they disabled or not) advocating for these Marxist measures are not actually representative of the disabled community, but I have no way of knowing. I further hope that, should I become disabled some day, I won't be a hypocrite. I will not demand that other people make special allowances for me under threat of smiting them with a mailed fist. I maintain however, that it is not wrong to appeal to human decency and ask for things politely.
Nothing wrong with being a little helpful to people in worse shape than you.
Oh, wait. This is a libertarian site.
Every man for himself and Devil take the hindmost.
If this is a "little helpful" I never want to see them get serious.
And again, why is your problem my tax?
A good example of how the ADA has been expanded beyond its intent. The law requires access to commercial enterprises. It does not require equal products/services. So, for example, a clothing store has to provide wheelchair access. It wasn’t supposed to require that the store carry clothing that a legless person can wear. And if such clothing was available, it wasn’t supposed to require that it be priced the same as clothing for the legged. But that got thrown out the window when certain morons on SOCTUS decided that not only does the PGA Tour have to provide access to the course, it has to level the playing field in the actual competition to accommodate the disabled.
A good example of how the ADA has been expanded beyond its intent.
The language of these laws is always short on specificity. A cynic might contemplate that the shadowy people who actually draft these laws want the outcomes we now see.
> The fact that the first woman cited in the DOJ lawsuit didn't notice the wait fees she was being charged on twice-daily rides until several months later suggests the burden wasn't that significant.
She was submitting the bill to insurance. So she didn’t care about the wait fees.
Health insurance companies already include medically necessary rides as a benefit of their policies.
This cunt was using Uber because she didn’t want to bother calling for those free rides. Which is fine, if she’s willing to pay out of her own pocket for more convenience.
But she wanted free Uber. Fuck her.
they are really trying to cripple Uber.
I drive for Uber on occasion, and this lawsuit it just stupid on its face. When the wait time ends and the ride time begins is up to the discretion of the driver. For myself, I usually start it when they are entering my car. That being said, the fee that comes after the 2 minutes is to compensate the driver for their time. Otherwise, the rider is just using their time for free. It isn’t the driver’s fault that it takes them longer to get in to the car. And, believe me, it drives us crazy when we have to wait on people to get to the car. We love the passengers that are at the curbside when we get there. Time is money for drivers.
Maybe next time try getting yourself a government backed union that will protect you from legal abuse.
And to customers, money is for service.
Exactly. Which is why they pay to have a driver wait.
Comping a few minutes of time is getting off easy. Remember the blind and deaf guy who sued because the movie theater refused to provide, at their own expense of about 25x what the guy was paying for a ticket, a personal interpreter to sign the movie into his hand? The court agreed with the guy that the ADA required this.
You know who else had a real thing with “ uber”?
It seems that the only thing NOT a violation of the ADA is forcing people with breathing issues to wear a mask or two everywhere they go.
Nice Blog,
I must say I'm Impressed with your blog!