What It Took to Get to the DOJ v. Uber Lawsuit

A close-up of a person holding a smartphone displaying the Uber app logo. The phone is held in one hand inside a vehicle.

I’ve been denied rides with my service dog more times than I can count.

Not because I was unclear. Not because the law wasn’t on my side. But because a driver could take one look at us and decide: nope. And Uber, no matter what it says in press releases, let them.

Over the years, drivers have challenged me to file complaints, knowing nothing would happen. And they were mostly right. I started documenting the rejections publicly in 2018. I called it “rejection time,” the extra hour I’d build into my schedule just to find a driver who wouldn’t leave me at the curb.

If I needed to be somewhere at 1pm, I’d call a ride by noon. Not because the drive took that long, but because I had to plan for the fight.

Once, before Uber Pet was even a backup option, I was in such a rush I paid for an Uber Black. It cost exponentially more than UberX, just to avoid being denied again. I paid a premium to be treated like I belonged.

This wasn’t rare. It was weekly. Sometimes daily. And when I shared my experiences, the pushback came fast:

“You’re overreacting.”
“Maybe try Uber Pet.”
“Why didn’t you just leave the dog at home?”

Lovey isn’t a pet. She’s a highly trained service dog from Canine Companions®. She’s my access partner. Before her, it was Pico, my first service dog, who stood next to me through the worst of this. I still wish his name could be in the court record.

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Uber for violating the ADA, denying rides to people like me. My name is in the complaint. CBS News covered it and quoted me saying what I’ve felt for years:

“The incidents are not isolated, but evidence of a widespread civil rights failure.”

“No one should be forced to choose between their mobility and their legal rights.”

It’s validating to be heard. But also exhausting that it took this long.

This lawsuit isn’t just about one company. It’s about a culture of compliance theater that leaves disabled people behind. And then expects us to be grateful for the ride when it finally shows up.

What I want now is simple: real enforcement. Not just good PR. Because access isn’t a suggestion. It’s the floor.

If you’ve never had to schedule rejection time, count yourself lucky. If you have, I see you.

And I hope you’ll answer this:

When have you had to shrink yourself just to get through the day?

What does accountability look like where you work, not just in writing, but in action?

Uber denies rides to passengers with disabilities, Justice Department claims in lawsuit

Uber’s Service Dog Policy Update: Progress or Just PR?

Uber logo displayed on a modern, abstract background featuring curved shapes in black, blue, and mint green.

I’ve spent a lifetime advocating for disability rights, fighting for equity, and pushing companies to make accessibility a reality—I’ve seen firsthand how corporations talk a big game about inclusion but fail in practice. That’s why Uber’s recent policy update on service dogs caught my attention.

Uber has always been required by law to allow service dogs, yet enforcement has been inconsistent at best. While matched with Canine Companions® Pico, I documented hundreds of refusals on Twitter/X, confronted drivers, filed complaints—and all too often, the most Uber would do was ensure I wasn’t matched with that driver again. Consequences were minimal, and riders like me bore the burden of proving discrimination over and over again.

Now, Uber is rolling out a feature that allows riders to self-identify as service dog handlers. If a driver cancels after being notified, they receive a warning reminding them that refusal is illegal. “Any driver who violates this policy may permanently lose access to the platform,” says Uber’s Chris Yoon, as quoted in The Verge. That sounds good, right? Except I’ve been here before. The key word is 'may'. Will drivers actually be held accountable, or will this be another slap on the wrist?

Uber’s history gives me reason to doubt. The system still leaves room for discrimination. Drivers can cancel rides under false pretenses—claiming they couldn’t find the rider, going offline, or making other excuses to avoid accountability. I and many others have seen this playbook. Meanwhile, service dog handlers are forced to navigate awkward confrontations and potential ride denials just to get from Point A to Point B. It get's exhausting. No handler should be forced to leave their medical equipment at home to make it on time to their destination.

This new feature seems helpful, but it places even more responsibility on disabled riders to preemptively disclose our status, creating a record of our attempts to comply. But why should it be on us to reduce the risk of discrimination? Why aren’t drivers trained, vetted, and monitored more closely to prevent these issues in the first place?

To be clear, I want to believe this marks a real shift. Uber claims this feature was developed “in collaboration with leading advocacy organizations and service dog handlers.” Organizations including National Federation of the Blind, The Seeing Eye, and American Council of the Blind. That’s a step in the right direction. But my optimism is cautious. Until we see consistent enforcement—until drivers who break the law actually face removal—this is just another policy on paper, not a lived reality.

So I ask: What would true accountability look like to you? Have you faced service dog refusals in rideshare services? What changes would make a real impact?

Uber wants to make riding with a service animal easier

Rideshare's Rocky Road: The Struggle for Equal Access in Uber and Lyft

A wheelchair user is seen staring out the front door of her home. Overlayed on the image is a series of text message notifications from rideshare companies Uber and Lyft noting that all Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles are busy.

Today I want to address the ongoing discrimination faced by individuals with disabilities in the rideshare industry, specifically companies like Uber and Lyft. Despite the progress we've made in advocating for equal rights and accessibility, these platforms continue to fall short in providing equal service to all.

Last year, I wrote about Lyft's stance in a private federal court filing: "Lyft is not a government institution. It is a private company that has no obligation to provide WAVs on its platform." This statement is a stark reminder of the systemic barriers that people with disabilities face daily. It's a disheartening sentiment that underscores the need for change.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken significant steps toward holding these companies accountable. Landmark lawsuits have been brought against Uber and Lyft, focusing on their obligations to provide equal access to all users. These lawsuits are a step in the right direction, but we must ask ourselves: Have they brought about any significant changes in the companies' practices?

The answer, unfortunately, is not as positive as we'd hope. A recent study by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority found Uber and Lyft provided wheelchair accessible vehicles for less than half the requests they received in 2019. This data is a bleak reminder of the discrimination disabled people face when trying to access these services.

Moreover, my personal experiences echo these findings. Since being matched with Canine Companions® Pico in 2014, I've faced numerous instances of discrimination, even when I’m not using my wheelchair. From drivers refusing to pick us up to being charged exorbitant cleaning fees for Pico's incidental shedding or worse, manufactured claims of bodily misbehavior, the discrimination is pervasive and systemic.

As a wheelchair user, I've often found myself stranded, unable to secure a ride due to the lack of Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (WAVs). In one instance, I waited for over an hour to successfully hail a WAV. This is not the on-demand service that these platforms promise.

All of this has effectively led me to leaving all my medical equipment at home simply to secure a ride on par with my non-disabled peers. This is not a choice any disabled person should have to make.

These experiences are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of discrimination. Despite having policies that publicly align with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), both platforms routinely refuse passengers with service animals and fail to provide adequate services for wheelchair users.

As we move forward, we must continue to hold these companies accountable. We must push for more transparency, better services, and true on-demand rides for those in a wheelchair. It's time for Uber and Lyft to live up to their promise of providing accessible and convenient transportation for all.

Data shows about half of calls for wheelchair rideshares go unanswered, stranding disabled users