Uber does not make wheelchair-accessible vehicles available in Pittsburgh, lawsuit alleges

Four people in Allegheny County who use wheelchairs believe Uber is discriminating against them because they cannot get rides through the ride-hailing company’s app due to their disabilities.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh, the plaintiffs and their lawyers allege that San Francisco-based Uber has no accessible vehicles on its network in the city, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The suit was brought by Strip District-based law firm Carlson Lynch and by Downtown-based nonprofit Disability Rights Advocates, on behalf of four individuals in Allegheny County with mobility constraints. They are seeking classaction status on behalf of all disabled people in Allegheny County.

The plaintiffs are not looking for monetary damages outside of attorneys fees. They are seeking changes to Uber’s policies and an increase in the number of wheelchair-accessible vehicles on the platform.

According to December 2018 data from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 3.6 million Americans with travel-limiting disabilities don’t leave their homes because they are disabled or housebound.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against Uber in San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Washington, D.C., said Bruce Carlson, founding partner at Carlson Lynch. Uber declined to comment on ongoing litigation.

Ride-hailing firm Lyft has also been sued in San Francisco. That company did not return a request for comment in time for publication.

Part of the issue is that ride-hailing networks rely on individual drivers to use their own private cars, which are not necessarily ideal for those who use wheelchairs, according to Mr. Carlson.

Uber does not provide an incentive — like higher fares or subsidizing upfront costs — for drivers to buy vans and install ramps, he said.

As traditional modes of public transportation like buses and taxi cab services are downsizing or canceling routes, Uber has a responsibility to all potential riders, Mr. Carlson said.

“They have a business model where they’re trying to take over the delivery of transportation services and ultimately eliminate a lot of transportation options,” he said. “Are they going to be a responsible corporate citizen or are they going to leave an entire community behind?”

Paul O’Hanlon, chair of the City of Pittsburgh-Allegheny County Task Force on Disabilities and a

plaintiff in the lawsuit, said he feels left out when it comes to new transportation options like Uber.

“My wife, who is able-bodied, can get a ride on Uber in literally minutes,” said Mr. O’Hanlon, of Regent Square.

His options include buses operated by the Port Authority of Allegheny County, taxis and Access, a shared paratransit service for those with disabilities. Mr. O’Hanlon said he usually takes the bus because the other two are unreliable. All city buses are ADA-compliant, according to the Port Authority’s website, and each has wheelchair ramps or lifts.

After-hours, though, Mr. O’Hanlon said he has no options. About a week ago, he returned to Pittsburgh from Philadelphia via Greyhound bus. It arrived Downtown over an hour late, at 1:30 a.m. Since he thought he had missed the last bus, he nearly had to camp out for hours.

“As it turns out, I didn’t miss the last bus, but we thought that I did,” he said. “It looked like ... my wife was going to get a ride home with all of our stuff and I’d hang out until 5 a.m. until the bus started running.”

Gayle Lewandowski, another plaintiff named in the suit, takes classes at Community College of Allegheny County, commuting from her home in Bellevue.

Ms. Lewandowski’s bus route was canceled as part of a contraction of services. She tried to use taxis but found them “expensive and unreliable,” according to the lawsuit. She’s often late or has to miss class.

In some cities, there is a special Uber service available to disabled riders, called Uber WAV for wheelchair-accessible vehicle.

That is still in a pilot stage, according to the company’s website, and is available only in Chicago, Washington, D.C., New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Phoenix, Houston and Austin in the U.S. Even in those locations, service is uneven.

A report by New York Lawyers for the Public Interest — an organization of attorneys working pro bono — found Lyft located a wheelchair-accessible vehicle in New York City only 5% of the time, while Uber did in 55% of cases studied.

Once Uber has been served with the complaint in the Pittsburgh case, the company has 20 days to respond, file a motion to dismiss the case or ask for an extension.

In the meantime, Mr. O’Hanlon remains steadfast.

“I feel that I should be able to get where everyone else goes,” he said.