Uber ordered to pay $35K in damages, provide wheelchair-accessible rides in B.C.'s Lower Mainland

An Uber sign is displayed inside a car in Palatine, Ill., Monday, May 22, 2023. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh,File)

Uber has been ordered to pay a man who uses a wheelchair $35,000 in damages and to make accessible rides available after the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal found the rideshare company has discriminated based on disability since it began operating in the region.

Martin Bauer filed a complaint with the tribunal soon after the service launched in 2020, and the decision in the case was posted online last week.

“The parties agree on the central fact that Uber does not provide wheelchair-accessible services in the Lower Mainland. As a result, Mr. Bauer is unable to use Uber’s ride-hailing services,” tribunal member Amber Prince wrote in her decision.

“There is no dispute that Mr. Bauer cannot hail a wheelchair-accessible trip through Uber’s app.”

Although the ride-share giant acknowledged this, Uber was challenging Bauer’s discrimination claim on several grounds.

Not a service?

To prove discrimination, someone needs to demonstrate that they have been denied a service that is “customarily available to the public,” the decision explains.

In this case, Uber argued that it does not actually provide a service but “merely provides the technology for passengers to request service from an independent transportation provider,” Prince wrote, summarizing the company’s submissions on that point.

In rejecting that argument, the tribunal noted that Uber is licensed by the province under the Passenger Transportation Act and that drivers are ultimately accountable to and under the control of the company.

“Uber drivers do not exist independent of Uber’s app,” Prince wrote.

“Uber chooses which drivers and vehicles meet Uber’s standard to deliver passenger transportation services in Uber’s name and under Uber’s license. Then, passengers contact Uber – not the driver – for a ride.”

Even though Uber does not own or operate the actual vehicles in its fleet, the tribunal found the company does provide a transportation service and is therefore required to comply with the Human Rights Code.

'Licence to discriminate?'

The ride-share company also argued that the terms of its licence to operate do not explicitly require it to offer accessible rides – unlike taxis.

“In essence, Uber asks me to recognize that it has a license to discriminate,” Prince wrote.

Uber pays a 30 cent fee for every trip that is not accessible to the provincial government, the decision notes, adding that those fees are meant to “to be used for accessibility programs.”

The province, in its submissions to the tribunal, said the per-trip-fee was never meant to be “in lieu” of accessible options and that the fee was meant to “incentivize” the company to provide its service to people who use wheelchairs – not to absolve it of the responsibility to do so.

“Uber’s payment of its licensing fee, including its per-trip fee for each inaccessible trip, is no answer to Mr. Bauer’s inability to access Uber’s services. The fee does not in anyway address Mr. Bauer’s access to Uber’s ride hailing services,” Prince wrote.

The decision also says that Uber asked the province, effectively, to "subsidize" the costs associated with providing accessible rides by giving it a share of the per-trip fee. Avoiding additional costs, the tribunal said, was the main reason – based on the evidence – that Uber adopted a "non-wheelchair accessible service standard."

Obligation to be accessible

The tribunal also found that when the company sought to expand into the Lower Mainland it did so with no plan to include accessible options.

“Uber decided to exclude wheelchair users from its service. Uber cannot claim it did not know how this decision would impact wheelchair users like Mr. Bauer,” the decision says.

"Uber had an obligation to consider wheelchair accessibility in its service design. Uber is a large, and well-established ride-hailing company with experience delivering wheelchair-accessible services in other cities across North America," it continued.

To prove discrimination, someone also has to demonstrate that a denial of service has had an adverse impact – something the tribunal found Bauer had shown in this case. The award of $35,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect was made to compensate Bauer for the impact of the discrimination.

"In my view, the discrimination is serious," Prince wrote.

"Uber’s lack of wheelchair-accessible services means that Mr. Bauer and other wheelchair users are denied a transportation option available to others. This blanket exclusion from services denies Mr. Bauer equality in his dignity and rights. Without access to Uber’s ride-hailing service, Mr. Bauer has fewer options than non-wheelchair users to fully and freely participate in the economic, social, political, and cultural life of B.C."

To remedy the discrimination, the company was ordered to create and implement a plan to offer accessible rides within one year.

Bauer's claim also included an allegation that Uber's operations in the region have decreased the overall number of taxis on the road, and therefore there are fewer accessible cabs. The tribunal dismissed this part of the claim, finding that Uber could not be held responsible for actions beyond the company's control.