Lyft -------- ADA -------- Service Animals

JustTreatMeFair

Well-Known Member
Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.

They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.

So what am I missing?

If that what Lyft believes than why do they terminate drivers that refuse to allow service dogs?

Service Animals are defined by the ADA as are responsibilities surrounding them. AS an Independent Contractor I doubt more than a few accounts rise to the level of employing 15 or more people so they would have no responsibility.

So somebody please explain again why a LYFT driver has to take a passenger with a service dog?
 

Pax Collector

Well-Known Member
So somebody please explain again why a LYFT driver has to take a passenger with a service dog
Because it's the law.
Post automatically merged:

If that what Lyft believes than why do they terminate drivers that refuse to allow service dogs?
They're not terminating. They're simply ending a contract.
 

SuzeCB

Well-Known Member
Lyft is fighting in Federal Court to avoid responsibilities under the ADA based on the contention they are not a transportation company.

They claim Drivers are not employees but Independent Contractors.

So what am I missing?

If that what Lyft believes than why do they terminate drivers that refuse to allow service dogs?

Service Animals are defined by the ADA as are responsibilities surrounding them. AS an Independent Contractor I doubt more than a few accounts rise to the level of employing 15 or more people so they would have no responsibility.

So somebody please explain again why a LYFT driver has to take a passenger with a service dog?
If Lyft were to "allow" drivers to continue driving after they found out that driver was violating the ADA, Lyft would be complicit in that violation. In having a firm no-tolerance policy, they remove themselves from any penalties or judgements that would otherwise be levied against them, and lay them right at the driver's door.

Which is exactly where they would belong, of course.
 

JustTreatMeFair

Well-Known Member
Read up on "public accommodation."

OK. Did that. No where can I find a personal vehicle listed in any category of public accommodations. Perhaps if someone is UBERing in an RV they have listed on Air B&B but that seems like a reach.

So... Back to the question

LYFT is arguing that they are NOT a transportation Company and thereby cannot be held accountable requirements of the ADA. LYFT has always taken the stance that a Driver is NOT an employee but an independent contractor. The typical Driver/Independent Contractor does not have 15 employees so....


a) Why does a Driver/IC have to accommodate a Service Animal?

b) Why would LYFT feel the need to terminate drivers that do not?

Seems like they are flopping back and forth on the issue which certainly weakens their position.

I think it would make a good legal argument that by enforcing the ADA's laws regarding Service Animals that they acknowledge their responsibility and undermine their case.

But their position regarding what a Driver is to them seems to relieve Drivers of the need to take a Service Animal into their car.
 
Last edited:

Pax Collector

Well-Known Member
OK. Did that. No where can I find a personal vehicle listed in any category of public accommodations. Perhaps if someone is UBERing in an RV they have listed on Air B&B but that seems like a reach.

So... Back to the question

LYFT is arguing that they are NOT a transportation Company and thereby cannot be held accountable requirements of the ADA. LYFT has always taken the stance that a Driver is NOT an employee but an independent contractor. The typical Driver/Independent Contractor does not have 15 employees so....


a) Why does a Driver/IC have to accommodate a Service Animal?

b) Why would LYFT feel the need to terminate drivers that do not?

Seems like they are flopping back and forth on the issue which certainly weakens their position.

I think it would make a good legal argument that by enforcing the ADA's laws regarding Service Animals that they acknowledge their responsibility and undermine their case.

But their position regarding what a Driver is to them seems to relieve Drivers of the need to take a Service Animal into their car.
One thing I can take away from your argument is that Lyft will try and mislead lawmakers they aren't a transportation company so they can skirt laws and regulations. I agree with that. The fact is Lyft is indeed a transportation company. This has nothing to do with service animals, however. They have a contractor and contractee relationship with you that would open them to huge liabilities should they overlook your refusal to accommodate riders with disabilities. As a result of that, they'll terminate their contract with you.

You, as the independent contractor, are still liable for service animal issues. You could personally be sued for refusing service to someone with a legitimate service animal. You being a Lyft contractor or employee is irrelevant at that point.
 

JustTreatMeFair

Well-Known Member
Same way other establishments that provide service to the general public are.

It would seem that the ADA does a fairly decent job of defining the establishments under their purview and a driver and his car does not fall into any of the listed categories I can find.

Instead of regurgitating what so many have "said" can anyone post something clarifying this from the ADA.

I think the premise all along has been that LYFT is a transportation company and as such they are subject to ADA requirements relating TO transportation. As such contractors they entered into agreements with would have to adhere to the ADA. This is a position LYFT is currently arguing against.

If that is their belief they should have zero interest in drivers refusing rides to service animals.
 

Pax Collector

Well-Known Member
It would seem that the ADA does a fairly decent job of defining the establishments under their purview and a driver and his car does not fall into any of the listed categories I can find.

Instead of regurgitating what so many have "said" can anyone post something clarifying this from the ADA.

I think the premise all along has been that LYFT is a transportation company and as such they are subject to ADA requirements relating TO transportation. As such contractors they entered into agreements with would have to adhere to the ADA. This is a position LYFT is currently arguing against.

If that is their belief they should have zero interest in drivers refusing rides to service animals.
Sigh..... You just don't get it. Best of luck on your quest.
 

IR12

Well-Known Member
It would seem that the ADA does a fairly decent job of defining the establishments under their purview and a driver and his car does not fall into any of the listed categories I can find.

Instead of regurgitating what so many have "said" can anyone post something clarifying this from the ADA.

I think the premise all along has been that LYFT is a transportation company and as such they are subject to ADA requirements relating TO transportation. As such contractors they entered into agreements with would have to adhere to the ADA. This is a position LYFT is currently arguing against.

If that is their belief they should have zero interest in drivers refusing rides to service animals.
Beating your head against brick wall.
Post automatically merged:

Sigh..... You just don't get it. Best of luck on your quest.
Draggy missed this one. It's right up his alley.
 

Coachman

Well-Known Member
On June 28, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a decision by the New York City district court that mandated all new city taxis be wheelchair accessible. Several wheelchair users and advocates for the disabled had filed charges against Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) – the licencing body of New York City taxis – for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to ensure that all taxis are accessible. General Counsel for the United Spinal Association equated this decision to the Jim Crow laws of the South.

In this case, taxis are considered the tool, not the service provider. They are not a place of public accommodation like many disabled rights advocates argue that taxis are. The federal appeals court ruled that the TLC could not be held accountable for enforcing accessibility because taxis are a personal belonging.

As a tool to accomplish transportation, taxis do not fall under the category of the obstacle to receiving services. But taxicabs being a tool does not exempt taxi drivers from following the ADA. The ADA Handbook specifies that taxi drivers still must comply with the ADA even if the drivers are not technically employees of a cab company. Complying with the ADA means places may not discriminate against people with disabilities and may not deny full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services afforded by the place.

Under 49 C.F.R. § 37.29 of the ADA, discrimination includes refusing to provide services to disabled people who can use taxis, refusing to assist with the stowing of mobility devices, and charging higher fares to people with disabilities or for storing their equipment.


https://www.mic.com/articles/10560/...mpliance-with-americans-with-disabilities-act
 

JustTreatMeFair

Well-Known Member
On June 28, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a decision by the New York City district court that mandated all new city taxis be wheelchair accessible.
Taxis

Taxis

Takis

Most posted opinions are that UBER/LYFT vehicles are NOT Taxis. I think everyone is too busy trying to shove it into a category to realize new technology and businesses do not always FIT in an established category.

Unless you have some other court ruling that defines what we are I don't think your case is valid.
 

Benjamin M

Well-Known Member
Most posted opinions are that UBER/LYFT vehicles are NOT Taxis. I think everyone is too busy trying to shove it into a category to realize new technology and businesses do not always FIT in an established category.

Unless you have some other court ruling that defines what we are I don't think your case is valid.
We all signed the same contract as independent contractors for Uber/Lyft. Both require us to accommodate service animals. It's that simple.
 

JustTreatMeFair

Well-Known Member
Honestly, what's the issue? I don't mind dogs in general, they're my best pax. I'd take a dog over a kid any day.

And if it's a legitimate service animal, as @Pax Collector said, it's the law.

Did you have a bad experience? Get deactivated for refusing?

I love dogs as well and never say No to transporting them. Never a bad experience or deactivated regarding the issue.

I find it ludicrous that LYFT s fighting to show they are not bound by ADA laws yet enforcing them where their drivers are concerned.
 

Benjamin M

Well-Known Member
We're taking about highly trained animals that serve a critical role for their owners. Some provide eyes, others help vets with PTSD, help monitor blood sugar changes, are alert to a pending seizure, etc.

The worst case, some hairs on the seats. That's why we vacuum. What's the big deal?

Hopefully you never need a service animal.
 

Coachman

Well-Known Member
Most posted opinions are that UBER/LYFT vehicles are NOT Taxis. I think everyone is too busy trying to shove it into a category to realize new technology and businesses do not always FIT in an established category.

Unless you have some other court ruling that defines what we are I don't think your case is valid.

Uber and Lyft need to listen to you. Their expert lawyers obviously don't know what they're doing.
 
Top