National Federation of the Blind v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
103 F. Supp. 3d 1073
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiffs: National Federation of the Blind of California (NFBC) and three blind individuals (Kelly, Hingson, Pedersen) allege Uber and its California subsidiaries permit UberX drivers to refuse to transport guide dogs.
- Services: UberX rides are requested via a smartphone app; some users are account-holders, others ride as guests of account-holders.
- Representative incidents: Kelly and Rodden were refused transport with guide dogs; Pedersen was refused, missed a shuttle and was late for work; Chahal and Gump were shouted at and left by a driver; Hingson alleges deterrence from using UberX after learning of other denials.
- Claims: Violation of Title III of the ADA; California Unruh Civil Rights Act; California Disabled Persons Act (DPA); declaratory relief.
- Procedural posture: Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and for a more definite statement. The magistrate judge denied the motion in full and ordered Uber to answer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NFBC associational standing under ADA | NFBC represents members injured by denials; brings injunctive/declaratory relief on behalf of members not bound to arbitration | Some members are bound by arbitration; prudentially individual members should litigate their own claims | NFBC has associational standing: Hunt factors satisfied; may represent non‑bound members; prudential concerns do not bar suit |
| Hingson: standing via deterrence theory | Hingson alleges knowledge of other denials, specific deterrent occasions, intent to use UberX in future | Uber: Hingson never attempted to use UberX and lacks "actual notice" of systematic discrimination | Hingson sufficiently alleged actual notice, specific deterrence instances, intent to return, and likelihood of future discrimination under Pickern/Doran |
| Pedersen: sufficiency/detail of allegations & Rule 12(e) more definite statement | Pedersen alleges multiple denials and a specific September 12, 2014 incident and intent to continue using UberX | Uber contends allegations are vague and insufficient to show standing | Pleading is specific enough to establish standing; 12(e) motion denied |
| Whether Uber is a "public accommodation" under Title III | Plaintiffs allege Uber qualifies as a "travel service" public accommodation (thus subject to ADA Title III) | Uber argues it is not a public accommodation and thus outside Title III | Court finds plaintiffs plausibly alleged Uber is a public accommodation; resolution requires further factual development and discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358 (9th Cir.) (on taking complaint allegations as true in Rule 12(b)(1) standing analysis)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972) (standing as "sufficient stake" in a controversy)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (constitutional standing elements)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (associational standing test)
- Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.) (ADA deterrence/relaxed injury standard to avoid futile gestures)
- Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.) (futility/deterrence theory under ADA)
- Carparts Distrib. Center, Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, Inc., 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.) (construction of "public accommodation" and leave to develop claim at pleading stage)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (limitations on conclusory allegations at pleading stage)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (leave to amend after dismissal)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (association may assert members' rights even if organization lacks injury)
- National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (N.D. Cal.) (associational standing under ADA supports state law claims)
- Jankey v. Song Koo Lee, 55 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal.) (DPA standing broader than ADA; "aggrieved or potentially aggrieved")