Petition Opposing Uber/Lyft
Self-Identification for Service Animal Handlers
Please circulate the following message as widely as appropriate. If you received this message as a forward and would like to receive information directly from Advocates for Service Animal Partners, please become a partner.
You can sign the following petition by going to Change.org/UberLyftPetition
On October 10, 2024, Uber announced updates to their accessibility policies meant to enhance rider experience for customers who are disabled. Within these policy updates are opportunities for customers who are blind or have low vision and those who are deaf or hard of hearing to disclose their disability through a voluntary self-identification process. Uber also announced a pilot program evaluating the viability of such a self- identification process for individuals who use service dogs. Likewise, on October 11, Lyft announced on their website that they will also introduce a self-identification program for service animal handlers in early 2025.
Empowering Riders with Disabilities | Uber Newsroom
Blogpost: Welcome to Lyft Shreya Shankar
Those of us whose disability prevents us from obtaining a driver license have found new freedom of travel due to the services provided by transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft. At the same time, many of us also experience the polar opposite as we face severe obstacles to our legally protected civil rights through the pervasive, persistent discrimination faced as the result of our choice to use a service dog.
Advocates for Service Animal Partners Inc. (ASAP) realizes Uber's and Lyft's concerns about the accessibility of their services to its patrons who are disabled and the profound consequences to both Uber and Lyft and its patrons as the result of pervasive, persistent discrimination we face by its drivers. ASAP is equally committed to and has a personal stake in enhancing the rideshare experience for those of us who use service dogs. Those who partner with us have considerable experience and in-depth understanding of how policies that were intended to streamline a process had the unintended negative effect of perpetuating the discrimination. Our experience with voluntary registries are one such policy.
The states of Michigan and North Carolina both have a voluntary registry program to which service animal handlers can opt in. Such provisions are not prohibited by the implementing regulations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because they are voluntary; however, when allegations of discrimination based upon the presence of a service dog are made, law enforcement refuses to enforce these state's misdemeanor anti-discrimination measures when the individual with a disability does not participate in the voluntary registry, thus perpetuating the discrimination. We believe a similar result will be realized by any voluntary registration instituted by Uber and Lyft, no matter how it is couched. Let us offer an actual illustration based upon one of Uber's current policies and how this unrelated policy has resulted in Uber's discrimination against those of us who use service dogs.
In 2019, Uber launched Uber Pets, a program allowing riders to bring their pets along for a small fee. Many individuals who use service dogs have faced opposition from Uber drivers advising us that they do not allow pets and we should have ordered an Uber pet even when we have advised them our dogs are service animals. On one occasion, this writer spent twenty minutes listening to an Uber driver complain about my service dog and how I should have ordered an Uber Pet. Similarly, due to the frequent discrimination we faced, many of us have acquiesced and ordered an Uber Pet to avoid the stress of missing an important appointment as the result of a driver's refusal to transport our service dogs. Since an Uber Pet can add as much as $10.00 to the fare, as well as adding additional response time, such action, borne out of necessity to avoid missing important appointments and meetings amounts to a service charge for our service dogs and an unequal benefit, both prohibited by Title III of the ADA.
Advocates for Service Animal Partners strongly opposes any form of service dog registry or self-identification. We believe the better approach is to create sound policies and protocol congruent with the implementing regulations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act that include specified, verifiable training and a zero-tolerance position for drivers who violate our civil rights these state and federal laws are meant to protect.
In addition to these recommendations, ASAP encourages open, honest, transparent accountability. In the spirit of such open communication, we have several questions to which we would appreciate written responses.
1. If a policy of voluntary self-identification is implemented in the United States, will drivers be able to see if a rider has opted in to the self-identification program prior to accepting the fare?
2. If drivers will not see if a rider has self-identified prior to the fare being accepted, will Uber or Lyft allow drivers to cancel the fare after the app alerts them the individual has self-identified as using a service dog?
3. If a driver cancels a ride after receiving notification of a rider's self-identification as using a service dog, will Uber and Lyft consider this prima facia evidence of the driver's violation of their anti-discrimination policies and immediately remove the driver from its platform?
4. Will reports from service dog handlers who do not opt in to the self-identification program receive the same level of attention and importance as those who opt in?
5. What evidence will Uber and Lyft accept to verify that a driver has violated its service animal policy in order to take disciplinary action?
6. What disciplinary action will Uber and Lyft implement toward its drivers to ensure compliance with state and federal laws?
7. Will Uber and Lyft agree to institute a written policy affirming and agreeing to voluntarily share detailed contact information with law enforcement officials concerning the identity of drivers who violate a state's prohibition of discrimination based on the individual's choice to use a service dog?
8. What significant forms of redress are Uber and Lyft willing to implement to meaningfully compensate riders who face discrimination based upon the presence of a service dog?
9. In light of the settlement agreement with the National Federation of the Blind of California et Al of December 6, 2016 that seems to have had no impact on this issue, how can customers who use service dogs feel confident Uber and Lyft are now committed to complying with state and federal laws and does not view customer complaints, state penalties, and potential punitive damages as simply the cost of doing business?
We want to believe that Uber and Lyft are genuinely interested in taking action to protect the civil rights of individuals who use service dogs; however, our past experience raises skepticism toward Uber's and Lyft's resolve.
Advocates for Service Animal Partners has anecdotal and documented evidence that voluntary registries such as Uber's and Lyft's proposed self-identification program is ineffective for protecting and advancing the civil rights of individuals who are disabled and use service dogs; therefore, Advocates for Service Animal Partners and its allies, as strongly as the written word can convey, vehemently oppose any type of registry, self-identification, or any other form of advance notice that has the effect of allowing and furthering discrimination based upon the choice of an individual to use a service dog to mitigate their disability.
Advocates for Service Animal Partners believes a better approach is to invest
Uber's and Lyft's time, energy, and resources educating their drivers on the importance of observing our civil rights and the repercussions of violating these provisions. Advocates for Service Animal Partners and its network have the experience and expertise to assist in the development of sound, legally compliant policies concerning service dogs, the practical understanding to implement those policies through specific, clear protocol, the knowledge base to create effective training concerning this protocol, and resources to verify participation in such a training program.
We have the expertise to guide Uber on this endeavor and want to be a part of the solution so Uber and Lyft can be an answer to our unique transportation needs instead of marginalizing our full participation in society on terms of equality through its pervasive, persistent pattern of discrimination. We look forward to your answers to our questions and to working with Uber and Lyft to create the policies, protocol, and training to ensure passengers with disabilities who choose to use a service dog are treated respectfully and equitably under the law.
Be a part of the change by signing this petition at Change.org/UberLyftPetition
Advocates for Service Animal Partners Inc. (ASAP)
Marion Gwizdala, President/CEO
Michael Hingson, Vice President
Merry Schoch, Treasurer
Marilyn Shafer, Secretary
Veronica Morris, Director
Self-Identification for Service Animal Handlers
Please circulate the following message as widely as appropriate. If you received this message as a forward and would like to receive information directly from Advocates for Service Animal Partners, please become a partner.
You can sign the following petition by going to Change.org/UberLyftPetition
On October 10, 2024, Uber announced updates to their accessibility policies meant to enhance rider experience for customers who are disabled. Within these policy updates are opportunities for customers who are blind or have low vision and those who are deaf or hard of hearing to disclose their disability through a voluntary self-identification process. Uber also announced a pilot program evaluating the viability of such a self- identification process for individuals who use service dogs. Likewise, on October 11, Lyft announced on their website that they will also introduce a self-identification program for service animal handlers in early 2025.
Empowering Riders with Disabilities | Uber Newsroom
Blogpost: Welcome to Lyft Shreya Shankar
Those of us whose disability prevents us from obtaining a driver license have found new freedom of travel due to the services provided by transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft. At the same time, many of us also experience the polar opposite as we face severe obstacles to our legally protected civil rights through the pervasive, persistent discrimination faced as the result of our choice to use a service dog.
Advocates for Service Animal Partners Inc. (ASAP) realizes Uber's and Lyft's concerns about the accessibility of their services to its patrons who are disabled and the profound consequences to both Uber and Lyft and its patrons as the result of pervasive, persistent discrimination we face by its drivers. ASAP is equally committed to and has a personal stake in enhancing the rideshare experience for those of us who use service dogs. Those who partner with us have considerable experience and in-depth understanding of how policies that were intended to streamline a process had the unintended negative effect of perpetuating the discrimination. Our experience with voluntary registries are one such policy.
The states of Michigan and North Carolina both have a voluntary registry program to which service animal handlers can opt in. Such provisions are not prohibited by the implementing regulations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because they are voluntary; however, when allegations of discrimination based upon the presence of a service dog are made, law enforcement refuses to enforce these state's misdemeanor anti-discrimination measures when the individual with a disability does not participate in the voluntary registry, thus perpetuating the discrimination. We believe a similar result will be realized by any voluntary registration instituted by Uber and Lyft, no matter how it is couched. Let us offer an actual illustration based upon one of Uber's current policies and how this unrelated policy has resulted in Uber's discrimination against those of us who use service dogs.
In 2019, Uber launched Uber Pets, a program allowing riders to bring their pets along for a small fee. Many individuals who use service dogs have faced opposition from Uber drivers advising us that they do not allow pets and we should have ordered an Uber pet even when we have advised them our dogs are service animals. On one occasion, this writer spent twenty minutes listening to an Uber driver complain about my service dog and how I should have ordered an Uber Pet. Similarly, due to the frequent discrimination we faced, many of us have acquiesced and ordered an Uber Pet to avoid the stress of missing an important appointment as the result of a driver's refusal to transport our service dogs. Since an Uber Pet can add as much as $10.00 to the fare, as well as adding additional response time, such action, borne out of necessity to avoid missing important appointments and meetings amounts to a service charge for our service dogs and an unequal benefit, both prohibited by Title III of the ADA.
Advocates for Service Animal Partners strongly opposes any form of service dog registry or self-identification. We believe the better approach is to create sound policies and protocol congruent with the implementing regulations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act that include specified, verifiable training and a zero-tolerance position for drivers who violate our civil rights these state and federal laws are meant to protect.
In addition to these recommendations, ASAP encourages open, honest, transparent accountability. In the spirit of such open communication, we have several questions to which we would appreciate written responses.
1. If a policy of voluntary self-identification is implemented in the United States, will drivers be able to see if a rider has opted in to the self-identification program prior to accepting the fare?
2. If drivers will not see if a rider has self-identified prior to the fare being accepted, will Uber or Lyft allow drivers to cancel the fare after the app alerts them the individual has self-identified as using a service dog?
3. If a driver cancels a ride after receiving notification of a rider's self-identification as using a service dog, will Uber and Lyft consider this prima facia evidence of the driver's violation of their anti-discrimination policies and immediately remove the driver from its platform?
4. Will reports from service dog handlers who do not opt in to the self-identification program receive the same level of attention and importance as those who opt in?
5. What evidence will Uber and Lyft accept to verify that a driver has violated its service animal policy in order to take disciplinary action?
6. What disciplinary action will Uber and Lyft implement toward its drivers to ensure compliance with state and federal laws?
7. Will Uber and Lyft agree to institute a written policy affirming and agreeing to voluntarily share detailed contact information with law enforcement officials concerning the identity of drivers who violate a state's prohibition of discrimination based on the individual's choice to use a service dog?
8. What significant forms of redress are Uber and Lyft willing to implement to meaningfully compensate riders who face discrimination based upon the presence of a service dog?
9. In light of the settlement agreement with the National Federation of the Blind of California et Al of December 6, 2016 that seems to have had no impact on this issue, how can customers who use service dogs feel confident Uber and Lyft are now committed to complying with state and federal laws and does not view customer complaints, state penalties, and potential punitive damages as simply the cost of doing business?
We want to believe that Uber and Lyft are genuinely interested in taking action to protect the civil rights of individuals who use service dogs; however, our past experience raises skepticism toward Uber's and Lyft's resolve.
Advocates for Service Animal Partners has anecdotal and documented evidence that voluntary registries such as Uber's and Lyft's proposed self-identification program is ineffective for protecting and advancing the civil rights of individuals who are disabled and use service dogs; therefore, Advocates for Service Animal Partners and its allies, as strongly as the written word can convey, vehemently oppose any type of registry, self-identification, or any other form of advance notice that has the effect of allowing and furthering discrimination based upon the choice of an individual to use a service dog to mitigate their disability.
Advocates for Service Animal Partners believes a better approach is to invest
Uber's and Lyft's time, energy, and resources educating their drivers on the importance of observing our civil rights and the repercussions of violating these provisions. Advocates for Service Animal Partners and its network have the experience and expertise to assist in the development of sound, legally compliant policies concerning service dogs, the practical understanding to implement those policies through specific, clear protocol, the knowledge base to create effective training concerning this protocol, and resources to verify participation in such a training program.
We have the expertise to guide Uber on this endeavor and want to be a part of the solution so Uber and Lyft can be an answer to our unique transportation needs instead of marginalizing our full participation in society on terms of equality through its pervasive, persistent pattern of discrimination. We look forward to your answers to our questions and to working with Uber and Lyft to create the policies, protocol, and training to ensure passengers with disabilities who choose to use a service dog are treated respectfully and equitably under the law.
Be a part of the change by signing this petition at Change.org/UberLyftPetition
Advocates for Service Animal Partners Inc. (ASAP)
Marion Gwizdala, President/CEO
Michael Hingson, Vice President
Merry Schoch, Treasurer
Marilyn Shafer, Secretary
Veronica Morris, Director
