Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
O'HANLON et al v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al
Case Number:
2:19-cv-00675
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
June 15, 2021
Judge Won't Toss Pa. Wheelchair Users' Suit Against Uber
Uber can't duck a group of Pittsburgh-area wheelchair users' claims the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to offer wheelchair-accessible vehicles, since a federal court had already established that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, a magistrate judge ruled.
-
November 13, 2019
Uber's 'Meritless' Bid To Arbitrate ADA Suit Thrown Out
Uber can’t force arbitration upon a group of Pittsburgh-based wheelchair users who allege the ride-hailing company violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, a Pennsylvania federal court ruled, saying the users have grounds to sue even without using the Uber app and its baked-in arbitration agreement.
-
October 01, 2019
Uber Can't Force Nonriders To Arbitrate, Wheelchair Users Say
Pittsburgh-area wheelchair users said their proposed Americans with Disabilities Act class action against Uber should be able to skip arbitration because none of them had actually used the ride-hailing app, agreed to its arbitration agreement or made claims that relied on the app's terms of service, according to a filing in Pennsylvania federal court Monday.