Blind Passenger Sues Uber Over Service Dog Refusal Injury
Author: Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
Published: 2016/06/03 - Updated: 2026/05/14
Publication Type: Announcement
Category Topic: Laws and Rights - Related Publications
Contents: Synopsis - Introduction - Main - Insights, Updates
Synopsis: This report announces the filing of a federal lawsuit, Jolliff v. Uber Technologies, Inc., in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, brought by the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs together with Gilbert LLP on behalf of Tiffany Jolliff, a blind policy specialist who works on federal employment policy for workers with disabilities. The complaint alleges that Uber drivers repeatedly refused service to Ms. Jolliff once they saw her service dog Railey, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Virginians with Disabilities Act, and details a June 14, 2015 incident in which a driver shouted that the dog was not allowed, drove off as she tried to enter the vehicle, and dragged her several feet, causing injury. The announcement is a useful reference for people with disabilities, service animal handlers, and advocates tracking how the ADA's public accommodations and transportation provisions are being applied to rideshare platforms - Disabled World (DW).
- Topic Definition: ADA Service Animal Rideshare Discrimination
ADA service animal rideshare discrimination refers to the unlawful refusal by a rideshare driver or transportation network company to transport a passenger with a disability who is accompanied by a trained service animal, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and corresponding state civil rights statutes. Under federal law, ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft are considered providers of public accommodation in transportation and must reasonably accommodate blind and otherwise disabled passengers traveling with service dogs, including allowing the animal in the vehicle without surcharge and without requiring documentation beyond what the ADA permits. Conduct such as canceling a trip on sight of the animal, demanding extra fees, ordering the passenger to ride without the dog, or driving away before the passenger is safely inside the vehicle may give rise to claims for injunctive relief and damages under federal and state disability rights law.
Introduction
Blind Passenger Sues Uber for Dragging Her and Service Dog Down the Street
The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (the "Committee") and Gilbert LLP have filed today a lawsuit in federal district court in the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of Tiffany Jolliff against Uber, alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Virginians with Disabilities Act ("VDA") for Uber's unlawful refusal to accommodate Ms. Jolliff, a blind passenger, and her service dog, Railey, and for injuring them in the process.
Main Content
The Complaint alleges that Ms. Jolliff, who works as a policy specialist for the federal government on employment for workers with disabilities, has been repeatedly discriminated against and denied Uber's services when Uber's drivers have seen that she is accompanied by her service dog Railey. Specifically, instead of accommodating her service dog Railey, as both the ADA and VDA require, Uber drivers have repeatedly driven off upon seeing that Ms. Jolliff had a service dog.
The lawsuit, Jolliff v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., arises from a June 14, 2015 incident that resulted in injury to Ms. Jolliff. As alleged in the Complaint, during that incident, the Uber driver who agreed to transport Ms. Jolliff yelled "that dog" is not allowed in the car and drove off. Not only did Uber's driver refuse to provide Uber's service to Ms. Jolliff and Railey, but the complaint also alleges that the Uber driver drove away while Ms. Jolliff was attempting to enter the car. As a result, Ms. Jolliff was dragged several feet, tripped, and suffered injuries.
"Imagine waiting for an Uber, which is supposed to be a quick, convenient way to travel, and repeatedly being denied services due to your disability and service animal," said Deepa Goraya, a Washington Lawyers' Committee staff attorney. "There is no excuse for this discrimination. By taking legal action, we hope to prevent this type of discrimination in the future and ensure that Uber and its drivers accommodate service animals that are often vital to a blind passenger's mobility."
"Federal law requires Uber to treat blind customers equally and accommodate their service animals," said Peter Romer-Friedman, Deputy Director of Litigation of the Washington Lawyers' Committee. "Uber cannot build its business model around flouting laws that protect consumers or workers."
When Congress enacted the ADA, it provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Such prohibited discrimination includes discrimination in the provision of taxi services and other public and private transportation. Services like Uber must reasonably accommodate blind passengers and their service dogs.
Washington Lawyers' Committee
Established in 1968, the nonprofit Washington Lawyers' Committee provides pro bono legal services to address discrimination and poverty issues in the Washington, DC region. The Washington Lawyers' Committee's work has included thousands of civil rights cases on behalf of individuals and groups in the areas of equal employment opportunity, fair housing, public accommodations, immigrant rights, disability rights, public education, veterans' rights, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, and prisoners' rights.
DC, Gilbert LLP
Based in Washington, DC, Gilbert LLP is a law firm focused on insurance recovery and litigation, and strategic consulting. The firm's clients include business entities, debtors and creditors in bankruptcy matters, trusts and committees formed in such cases, law firms, accounting firms and other professional service organizations, non-profits and individuals.
Insights, Analysis, and Developments
Editorial Note: Cases like Jolliff v. Uber Technologies highlight the ongoing tension between rapidly scaling rideshare business models and long-established civil rights protections for blind and disabled passengers who depend on service animals for safe mobility. Whether resolved through settlement, policy reform, or a court ruling, the outcome of these lawsuits shapes how transportation network companies train drivers, audit complaints, and enforce service-animal acceptance - matters that have direct, day-to-day consequences for anyone who relies on a guide dog or other trained service animal to get to work, medical appointments, or community life - Disabled World (DW).Attribution/Source(s): This quality-reviewed publication was selected for publishing by the editors of Disabled World (DW) due to its relevance to the disability community. Originally authored by Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and published on 2016/06/03, this content may have been edited for style, clarity, or brevity.