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

Performative Allyship Is Exhausting—Here’s What Real Support Looks Like

Quote graphic with a photo of Ryan Honick and the text: “I don’t need another empty statement about inclusion. I need the kind of allyship that shows up when no one’s watching.”

Earlier this month, I went to the first-ever WAWABILITY event at The Anthem. It was joyful. Messy in the best way. Loud. Hilarious. Real. And even with a modest turnout, it mattered—a lot.

Credit to Warren "Wawa" Snipe, the visionary behind it. The guy brought his full heart, his artistry, and his community. I hope it continues. I really do. This city needs more of it.

But then I looked over at the sponsor display—and there it was: Uber. One of about a dozen logos backing the event.

And I just sat with that for a minute.

Yes, that Uber.

The same company that’s denied me rides because of Canine Companions® Lovey. The same one that’s been sued (repeatedly) for discrimination. The same one that looked the other way after I was left on the curb.

But sure. Throw some money at a Disability Pride event. Put your name on a banner. Snap a photo for the DEI newsletter.

That’s what performative allyship looks like. And disabled folks? We know it when we see it. We’ve had to get really good at reading the fine print behind the smiling statements.

It’s the employer who posts about Disability Employment Awareness Month, but makes you jump through three layers of HR just to get a basic accommodation.

It’s the airline that says your safety is “top priority”—while treating your wheelchair like oversized luggage.

It’s the landlord who says $5,000 for a power door opener is “too much,” even though the company manages a billion-dollar portfolio.

You start to realize: it’s not that they don’t have the resources. It’s that they don’t see us as worth spending them on.

That takes a toll. Not just professionally. Not just logistically. But emotionally.
Because every time we advocate, we’re calculating the cost. Will this change anything? Will they retaliate? Will they suddenly see me differently?

Spoiler: they often do.

I’ve watched the shift.

I’ve felt it.

I’ve disclosed a disability and watched my standing change—without my performance changing at all. And if you push back? Suddenly you’re the problem. You’re “too sensitive.” You’re “hard to work with.” You’re imagining it. We’re not imagining it. We’re just tired of proving it.

So let’s be real: I don’t need another empty statement about inclusion. I need the kind of allyship that shows up when no one’s watching. I need people who are willing to be angry with us—not just empathetic. I need the 80%—the non-disabled folks in rooms we’re not in—to stop whispering support and start saying something out loud.

Because we see the gap between your message and your actions. And we’re done pretending we don’t.

Have you ever felt that shift—celebrated one day, sidelined the next?
If you’ve disclosed a disability at work, what changed afterward?
And for the allies: when was the last time you said something—not just felt bad about it?

The Real Cost of Doubting Disabled Students

A dark-themed infographic titled "What Accommodations Actually Do." At the center is a circular diagram divided into four segments, each with an icon and a label. Starting from the top and moving clockwise:

"Remove unnecessary barriers" with the subtext "Address structural obstacles" and an icon of a hurdle.

"Provide equal opportunity" with the subtext "Not an unfair advantage" and an icon of a person.

"Give a fighting chance" with the subtext "Fair shot at success" and an icon of dice.

"Level the playing field" with the subtext "Create equitable conditions" and an icon of balanced scales.

I remember the hours I poured into LSAT prep—practice exams, flashcards, the quiet resolve of Saturday mornings spent chasing a dream. I took the test twice, both times with extended time, not because I wanted an edge, but because I needed it. My disability meant I processed information differently, and those accommodations didn’t make the test easier—they made it possible.

So when I read recent pieces by Jillian Lederman in The Wall Street Journal and Dennis Beaver in Kiplinger suggesting that disability accommodations are being widely abused in law schools, I wasn’t just disappointed. I was angry.

Lederman’s article asks readers to consider whether the rise in accommodations reflects dishonesty rather than need. Beaver goes further, labeling it a “dirty, well-kept secret” that some students are “dishonor students” gaming the system. That rhetoric isn’t just damaging—it’s dangerous.

Yes, fraud exists. But “1 in 4 adults may exaggerate ADHD symptoms” ≠ everyone is cheating. That kind of math erases real people—people like me—who need accommodations just to compete on equal footing.

According to Lederman, over a third of Pepperdine Caruso Law students now receive accommodations. Instead of asking why more students are seeking support, these articles cast suspicion. One Pepperdine student who circulated a petition was accused of bullying for questioning the process, highlighting just how fraught this conversation has become.

I’ve lived that tension. I’ve had professors doubt me. I’ve heard administrators say accommodations like colored charts “compromised academic standards.” And I’ve watched students and professionals with legitimate needs stop asking—because the process of justifying your existence is too exhausting.

Here’s the truth: 1 in 5 Americans has a disability. We’re finally seeing more people understand their rights. That’s not a scandal—it’s progress. But that progress is under threat when headlines frame inclusion as cheating.

In the workplace, I’ve rarely asked for “extra time” on a deadline. That's not practical in many fast-paced workplaces. I use tools—screen readers, flexible arrangements—to do the job well. Regardless of what accommodations are leveraged, they aren’t a cheat code. They’re a lifeline.

So here’s my ask:

✅ If someone says they need an accommodation—believe them.
✅ If you don’t understand—ask, don’t accuse.

And if you’ve ever had to justify your disability to someone who didn’t want to believe you—I see you.

We can’t keep mistaking access for advantage. If we want equity to mean something, it starts by choosing to believe people the first time they tell us what they need.

“Access Isn’t Just a Ramp—It’s a Vibe”: Reflections from the DIAL Conference

Enoch Pratt Central Library in Baltimore, Maryland

There’s something quietly powerful about being invited into a space that’s not only ready to hear you—but ready to evolve.

Huge thanks to Erin Kelly, Alicemarie (AM) Dillon, Liz Sundermann-Zinger, LaShawn Myles, and the entire Enoch Pratt Free Library & Maryland State Library Resource Center team for making that kind of space real during today's DIAL Conference. You didn’t just host an event—you created an environment that invited candor, trust, and reflection. And that matters more than most people realize.

As a disability advocate and speaker, I’ve shared stages across the country—but rarely with a team as committed, prepared, and intentional as this one. From the AV folks to the captioners to the people behind the chat box making everything flow, your work didn’t go unnoticed. It made the keynote possible.

One of the things I said during our conversation was:
“Access isn’t just a ramp—it’s a vibe.”

What I meant is this: real accessibility shows up in the tone of the welcome, the thoughtfulness of the planning, and the way people respond when someone says, “Here’s what I need.”

When I was working with my former service dog, Canine Companions® Pico—and now with Lovey, my current partner—I’ve learned that access isn't just about logistics. It’s about feeling expected instead of inspected. It’s about being able to show up without having to justify your presence.

That’s the difference between a place that accommodates and a place that includes.

We covered a lot in our fireside chat: from ADA as the floor—not the ceiling—to the ways intersectionality demands we design for full, complex lives. We talked about emotional access, ally fatigue, and the quiet power of believing someone the first time they ask for support.

And the questions from the audience? Thoughtful, brave, and forward-thinking. That’s what gives me hope.

Thank you for showing up. Not just in the chat or in the session—but in the work.

Let’s keep pushing. Keep building. Keep asking:

➡️ Who’s not in the room, and why?
➡️ How do we make access cultural, not just procedural?
➡️ What does true welcome look and feel like?

If you joined the session, I’d love to hear: what are you taking back to your branch, your office, your community?

And if you didn’t catch it—don’t worry. This conversation is just getting started.

What Two Weeks in Medford Taught Me About Leadership, Loss, and Love

A montage of photos featuring Ryan with successor service dog, Lovey

I just got back from two of the most intense weeks I’ve had in years—at the Northeast Region training facility for Canine Companions® in Medford, NY. That’s where I met Lovey. She's my new service dog. Pico's successor. And already, I can tell she’s going to change my life.

Here’s the thing: matching with a service dog isn’t just about pairing human and canine—it’s about rewriting the rules of trust, communication, and interdependence. The organization spends 6–9 months training the dogs, and then two weeks training us, the handlers. It's a crash course in humility, patience, and partnership. They joke about it, but it's true: we’re the ones in boot camp.

Every day was 9-to-5 class time, followed by evening bonding sessions, homework, lecture notes, a written final, and a real-world practicum. It was camp, sure—but with a side of exhaustion. I told people it wasn’t a vacation. I meant it. And I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

On day one, we worked with multiple dogs in what’s called “rotation.” By Tuesday morning—yes, just day two—the trainers had watched enough to say, “We think we’ve found your match.” That was Lovey.

She’s smart, quirky, and has already challenged me in ways that make me want to be a better human. She knows about 50 commands—from turning off lights to opening drawers to providing deep pressure support during moments of anxiety. But what struck me most wasn’t just her training—it was how quickly she read me. Understood me. Maybe even before I understood myself.

I’ve done this before. Pico and I met back in 2014. But everything’s changed. The training has evolved. I’ve evolved. And now, so much of what I learned with Pico is shaping how I show up for Lovey. She’s not filling his shoes—she’s blazing her own trail. And I’m walking beside her.

We ended our training with a Zoom call with Lovey’s puppy raiser. It felt sacred—this moment of connection between the people who start these dogs on their journey and those of us lucky enough to walk with them through the next chapter.

I wish more people understood the transformative power of these dogs—not just in what they do, but in what they mean. This isn’t just about a leash and a command—it’s about access, autonomy, and dignity. About redefining independence on our own terms.

So here we are. Back home. Training camp is over, and Lovey and I are already in sync in small but meaningful ways. I slept in my own bed last night for the first time in two weeks—and it was glorious. Tomorrow, we go back to work. But now I’ve got Lovey. And the journey ahead is full of purpose.

To my fellow handlers, puppy raisers, trainers, and supporters—thank you. To those unfamiliar with this world, I invite you in.

Disability Accommodations at Work: Why Employees Fear Speaking Up

A diverse group of professionals, including wheelchair users and employees with headphones, collaborate in a modern office, promoting workplace inclusion and accessibility.

Who gets to be "disabled enough"?

That’s the uncomfortable debate unfolding in workplaces across the country—and one I recently discussed in The Wall Street Journal alongside Justina Plowden and Keely Cat-Wells.

As more employees request accommodations, some worry we’re stretching the definition of disability too far. But here’s the real question: Are we diluting the meaning of disability, or are we finally acknowledging the full spectrum of barriers people face?

Here’s where I stand: Pitting disabilities against each other is dangerous. It’s not up to me, an employer, or anyone else to decide whose disability is “valid enough” to deserve support. If someone says they need an accommodation, believe them. Full stop.

And yet, many disabled employees don’t feel safe disclosing their disability at all. Why? Because they know what happens next:

🚫 They’re seen as less competent.
🚫 They’re overlooked for promotions.
🚫 They’re often the first to go in layoffs.

This is why so many people don’t ask for accommodations, even when they’re legally entitled to them. It’s not simply that remote work itself makes disabled employees more vulnerable—it’s that stigma and workplace bias make disclosing a disability a risk.

I appreciate WSJ and Callum Borchers for giving space to this conversation, and I hope it pushes more employers to rethink how they support disabled workers—both those who disclose and those who don’t.

Disabled Workers Debate Who Is Really One of Us

DEI is Under Attack—But Inclusion Can’t Be Optional

A modern office features an illuminated sign reading "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Strength in Unity" with a colorful gradient background. In the background, a diverse group of employees collaborates around a conference table in a well-lit space with large windows.

Every day, I watch as the policies meant to ensure my dignity, my inclusion, and frankly, my survival, get dismantled. It’s not hypothetical. It’s not a distant issue. It’s personal.

Like many disabled professionals, I see the writing on the wall—diversity, equity, and inclusion are under attack in ways that go beyond policy changes. These aren’t just bureaucratic shifts; they send a chilling message about whose existence is valued and whose is not. And for so many of us, that message is hitting hard.

But here’s what I also know: not everyone is backing down. Not every company, every leader, every organization is willing to let progress be erased. Some including Apple, Microsoft, Delta Air Lines, Johnson & Johnson , and JPMorganChase are doubling down, choosing to be louder, more intentional, more committed to inclusion than ever before. And if you’re one of those people—if you believe that workplaces should be places of opportunity for everyone, not just the most privileged—then now is the time to act.

I’ve spent my career navigating the intersections of disability, policy, and workplace equity. I don’t just speak about inclusion—I live it. And I know firsthand what it takes to create workplaces where disabled professionals don’t just survive but thrive.

If your company, conference, or organization is still committed to real DEI—not just as a buzzword, but as a practice—I want to talk. Hire disabled speakers. Bring in disabled consultants. Invest in perspectives that aren’t just theoretical but lived. Because right now, at a time when so many of us feel like our voices are being pushed aside, inclusion can’t just be a quiet value. It has to be a loud, unwavering action.

Red Flags in Job Descriptions: What Disabled Applicants Notice

A digital illustration of the Washington Nationals logo prominently displayed in the center, surrounded by vibrant red, white, and blue accents. The background features a baseball diamond with dramatic lighting, creating a sense of energy and pride. The design emphasizes the team's colors and tradition in a bold and professional style

Today, I find myself reflecting on a troubling trend in job postings that claim inclusivity while subtly discouraging applicants with disabilities. A perfect example comes from a job description for a Communications Manager with the Washington Nationals. The LinkedIn algorithm suggested I'd be a top applicant. A chance to blend my love of communication and baseball? My interest was piqued. On the surface, it outlines standard communication responsibilities—drafting press releases, coordinating interviews, and managing media relations. All of these align perfectly with the skills expected of a professional communicator.

But then comes the Physical/Environmental Requirements section, which demands:

• Standing for long periods.
• Walking long distances.
• Climbing up and down stairs.
• Lifting up to 45 pounds.

For a role focused on media relations, where exactly does lifting 45 pounds come into play? These physical requirements raise serious questions.

Let’s unpack this: The job description explicitly states that the Washington Nationals are "dedicated to offering equal opportunity employment and advancement…including disability." Yet, these physical demands feel like unnecessary hurdles, particularly for disabled professionals. This disconnect is more than an oversight—it's a systemic issue. Arbitrary physical requirements often serve as a quiet signal that disabled applicants may not be fully welcome.

Job descriptions like this one, with their misaligned physical requirements, highlight a glaring gap between intention and execution. They inadvertently screen out highly qualified candidates, not because they lack the skills, but because the posting assumes physical ability is synonymous with competence.

Nowhere in my 15 years as a communications professional have I been asked to lift 45 pounds.

Employers must evaluate if physical demands are truly essential. Is there a genuine reason for a communications manager to climb stairs or carry heavy loads? If not, these requirements should be removed.

Companies claiming to value inclusivity need to ensure their job postings reflect that ethos. Accessibility isn’t just about wheelchairs and ramps—it’s about eliminating unnecessary barriers in hiring.

Postings should explicitly encourage applicants to discuss accommodations. A simple line—“We are happy to accommodate your needs to perform essential job functions”—can make a world of difference.

Language matters. If a company’s goal is true inclusivity, they must start by removing arbitrary barriers from their job descriptions. Let’s make sure equal opportunity is more than just a tagline.

We're clearly in the off-season and the Washington Nationals latest job posting is a strikeout. Hopefully their next Communications Manager can encourage the use of inclusive language.

Why Disability Representation in Media Is More Than Just a Moral Imperative

Marissa Bode as Nessarose in Wicked.

As we close out 2024, I can’t stop thinking about Wicked. Not just the dazzling sets, the soaring music, or the star-studded cast. No, what lingers most is Marissa Bode—her powerful, unapologetic portrayal of Nessarose. Here was a wheelchair user, playing a wheelchair user, in one of the year’s most anticipated films. Groundbreaking, yes. But it wasn’t without its challenges.

Marissa Bode didn’t just act; she fought. When trolls flooded social media with ableist remarks, mocking her disability, she spoke out. “Disability is not fictional,” she said. Simple words. Monumental truth. And yet, the backlash she faced underscores a harsh reality: representation is still fragile, progress still precarious .

Why does this matter? Consider the numbers. In the U.S., disabled people make up 28.7% of the viewing audience. Globally, we’re talking about over 1 billion people. Yet, only 1.9% of speaking characters in the top 100 films have disabilities. That statistic hasn’t budged since 2015. Hollywood isn’t just lagging—it’s stuck .

But when representation is done right, it’s transformative. Take CODA. Its portrayal of the deaf community swept awards season, proving that diverse stories resonate deeply. Writer Siân Heder told Variety's Randee Dawn: “People can smell authenticity… Tell these stories because they’re fun, they’re entertaining—and they’re sexy.” Inclusion isn’t a risk; it’s an opportunity .

So what’s next? What do we want for 2025? I dream of a year when Marissa Bode’s story isn’t exceptional but ordinary. When disability representation doesn’t make headlines because it’s normal. When studios stop seeing accessibility as a logistical headache and start seeing it as a creative necessity.

Representation matters because it changes how society views us—disabled people. It normalizes our existence, shatters stereotypes, and inspires a generation to see themselves not as “other” but as integral to the human experience. It also matters because it’s good business. Let’s not ignore the power of a billion-person market.

But let’s be clear: representation alone won’t solve ableism. True inclusion requires more. It requires disabled voices at every level—writers, directors, crew members. It demands accessible sets, thoughtful storytelling, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. Hollywood can’t just open the door; it has to invite us in and let us stay.

As I look toward 2025, I’m optimistic but not complacent. The progress we’ve seen in 2024 with films like Wicked is encouraging, but it’s not the finish line. It’s a starting point. Let’s amplify these stories, hold gatekeepers accountable, and create a world where the next Marissa Bode doesn’t have to fight just to be seen.

Representation isn’t just about who gets to tell the story—it’s about who gets to be part of the story. Let’s make 2025 the year we get this right.

Project 2025 and America’s Choice: What Trump’s Reelection Means for Disability Rights and DEI

Black background with white text reading 'What's at Stake for Civil Rights: Project 2025,' framed by a gradient border transitioning from purple to blue to pink.

For many in the disability community, the outcome of this election is a profound blow. It's a stark reminder that this is not an anomaly; it's a deliberate choice by the electorate. As disability advocates, we must confront this reality, grieve its implications, and prepare for the arduous journey ahead.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts are essential for creating spaces where all people, including disabled individuals, can thrive. Yet, with Project 2025’s clear intent to politicize the federal workforce, these efforts face a direct threat. The plan to replace nonpartisan civil servants with political loyalists doesn’t just jeopardize the integrity of government agencies; it also poses a serious risk to any DEI initiatives within the federal government. When leadership is handpicked to fit a rigid ideological mold, DEI initiatives—particularly those that protect marginalized groups—become targets for dismantling.

For disabled federal employees like myself, this change isn’t abstract. It could mean the erosion of inclusive hiring practices, the rollback of workplace accommodations, and a shift toward a culture that prioritizes conformity over diversity. By undercutting DEI, the federal government risks creating a hostile environment for all who rely on its protections, effectively shutting the door on years of progress in fostering an equitable workplace.

Moreover, Project 2025 aims to politicize the federal workforce by replacing nonpartisan civil servants with loyalists. This shift could transform agencies like the U.S. Department of Justice from protectors of civil rights into enforcers of a singular ideology, jeopardizing the rights of marginalized communities.

In 2016, we told ourselves, "This isn't who we are." Today, we must face the hard truth: This is who we are. Our society has twice chosen a path that marginalizes, excludes, and actively silences people like us. As Scaachi Koul wrote for Slate Magazine, "This is a country where half the population is content in its hatred of women, of queer people, of brown and Black people, of anyone who comes to the United States from a poorer country."

Acknowledging the pain doesn't mean we give up. We have work to do, even if it's uphill, exhausting, and heartbreaking. But we have to begin by mourning what we've lost—the hope for a more inclusive future, the belief that our voices mattered, and that progress was possible. We may be in the crosshairs, but we are not powerless. We are still here, advocating, fighting, and demanding that our nation's policies reflect everyone's needs, not just those who conform to a narrow idea of "American."

So let's grieve today, gather strength, and prepare for what comes next. Tomorrow, we continue the work, not because it's easy, but because it's necessary.