Body
A Minnesota settlement will require Lyft to accommodate disabled passengers traveling with service animals, an agreement state officials said will apply across the United States, not only in Minnesota. The announcement came after Minnesota’s Department of Human Rights investigated complaints that Lyft drivers refused a student’s service dog, a dispute that both sides resolved through negotiated terms rather than litigation.
The case centered on Tori Andres, a college student who turned to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights after several Lyft drivers would not allow her service animal, a dog named Alfred, to ride along with her. State investigators determined that Lyft was violating Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, according to the department.
Andres described the relationship with her guide dog at a news conference, where she said, “This case is a deeply personal thing to me because I travel pretty much everywhere with my guide dog.” She added, “He is my eyes. He is my freedom, and he is why I am able to live independently.”
Under the settlement, Lyft agreed to train its drivers on the rights of passengers with disabilities and to ensure drivers understand they could be “deactivated” and lose their ability to drive for Lyft if they violate the law, Minnesota Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero said. Lucero also said drivers cannot cancel or refuse a ride because a passenger has a service animal or a wheelchair, including situations involving low or no vision.
The settlement includes technology changes for riders and drivers in the Lyft app. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights said riders will be able to update their accessibility settings to notify a driver that they are traveling with a service animal, and to report if they are denied service. The state said Lyft also agreed to follow up on every report it receives of driver refusals.
In addition, Lucero said drivers who attempt to cancel or refuse a ride after a passenger has disclosed a service animal in the app will immediately receive an in-app message stating that refusing service animals is against the law and that they risk losing their jobs. Lucero said the state will monitor Lyft’s compliance for three years and that Andres will receive a $63,000 monetary settlement.
Lyft disputed the idea that it violated the law and downplayed the settlement’s significance, saying it did not agree to policy changes because the relief sought by the state was already in place. In a statement, Lyft said, “Discrimination has no place in the Lyft community,” and added that it has maintained a strict service animal policy for nearly a decade, with “independent drivers who violate that policy” facing consequences, including “permanent deactivation.”
Lyft also characterized the alleged violations as involving independent drivers, while the Minnesota Department of Human Rights said it reached the settlement without resorting to a lawsuit. Lucero said the agreement was not limited to Minnesota, adding that she expects passengers across the United States to benefit from the changes.
Lucero said the Minnesota Human Rights Act binds ride-share companies, including Uber, even though Uber is not a party to the settlement. She said her agency receives complaints involving transportation companies but did not indicate that anything is currently under way against Uber. Uber did not immediately respond to a request for details about its service-animal policies, but the company’s website says it must accommodate service animals in compliance with applicable accessibility laws and its own policy, which says it has no exceptions for allergies, religious objections, or fear of animals.
The federal government has pursued separate legal action against Uber. A lawsuit filed in San Francisco last September alleged that Uber routinely refused to serve people with disabilities, including individuals with service dogs, and Lucero said a federal magistrate judge denied a motion to dismiss the case last week. Lucero also framed the broader issue in civil-rights terms, saying, “Access to ride shares like Lyft is not a convenience. It is, in fact, a civil right.”