Lyft Inc. does not have to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles in Westchester County or anywhere else in the U.S. where it does not already offer the service, a federal judge has ruled.
“Notwithstanding the laudable purpose for which this action was brought,” U.S. District Judge Philip M. Halpern stated in a Sept. 30 opinion, “the requirements … for these types of claims for relief have not been met.”
Harriet Lowell, of White Plains, who began losing her ability to walk in 1997 and has been using a motorized scooter since 2008, and Westchester Disabled on the Move Inc., of Yonkers, sued Lyft in 2017. They claimed that Lyft was violating the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the state Human Rights Law.
Lyft, of San Francisco, matches riders with drivers through an on-demand ridesharing app. The app has an access mode for New York City and eight other cities across the country where drivers who own or rent wheelchair accessible vehicles can offer their services to customers with disabilities.
Everywhere else, the app is set to standard mode that does not necessarily include wheelchair accessible vehicles.
Lowell and Westchester Disabled argued that the standard mode violates anti-discrimination laws because it denies riders with disabilities from receiving equal enjoyment of services, and it creates barriers to using the service.
“Without reliable transportation options,” the complaint stated, “people cannot maintain employment, obtain health care, visit friends and family, or otherwise be full and regular participants in civil life.”
Judge Halpern held a five day bench trial in July. Originally, his opinion notes, the plaintiffs sought access to reliable transportation with similar wait times as the standard service. But at trial they “shifted gears” and tried to frame the issue as Lyft’s failure to provide them with the opportunity to request an accessible vehicle, regardless if one is available.
“This case is about transportation, not an option in an app,” Halpern stated. Citing a court precedent, he continued, “Attempts to recast the claims asserted in this action impermissibly makes the case ‘a moving target that the court declines to entertain.'”
He said the plaintiffs failed to identify a policy, practice or procedure that could be modified in a cost-effective way or work with Lyft’s supply and demand strategy.
Where supply or demand are lacking in a region, he stated, “the platform will fail.”
He said they also failed to identify a barrier, as defined in the anti-discrimination laws, that could be removed at a cost that does not exceed its benefits.
Eight national organizations submitted amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs, including the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, National Disability Rights Network, and Paralyzed Veterans of America.
“All can agree that expanding transportation options for people with disabilities is of great importance,” Halpern concluded. But the plaintiffs did not propose any modifications that would result in effective, wheelchair accessible transportation in Westchester, New York or across Lyft’s 300 other non-access regions.
