The association claims that Uber has not take action regarding some of its drivers refusing to allow guide dogs in their vehicles. (Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The South African Guide Dog Association for the Blind (Sagda) wants to sue Uber for R10 million in damages over what it says is discrimination against people with visual disabilities by the e-hailing service’s UberAssist platform.
Sagda’s legal representatives, Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys, served Uber with court papers last Thursday, citing unfair and unlawful discrimination perpetrated by its drivers against the association’s members.
“Uber has taken absolutely no accountability and has refused to take steps to eliminate the discrimination by its Uber drivers,” said attorney Deirdre Venter.
The UberAssist function was rolled out in Johannesburg in August 2017 with the promise of safe and reliable rides for senior and disabled people “who require additional assistance get around the city more conveniently”.
But Sagda members said the service had not lived up to its promise, and that they felt unsafe and subject to discrimination by the drivers.
“The UberAssist drivers just make you feel stupid or insecure that we cannot see or use guide dogs which shows that they are clearly not trained on how to provide services for people with disabilities,” a Sagda member said.
Uber South Africa confirmed receiving the notice from Sagda and said it had been “reviewing [our] next steps internally”.
“Uber is committed to providing a safe, accessible, and inclusive platform for all users, including persons with disabilities,” the e-hailing service added.
But in the court application, Sagda said Uber had a habit of providing “generic and automated responses to Sagda members when the incidents are reported”.
It said the application at the equality court came after multiple efforts by the association to communicate with Uber South Africa about allegations of discrimination against its drivers. It said Uber had taken the approach that its drivers are “free agents” and they may “transport who they like”.
“There were too many complaints by our members and we thought it was best to handle the discrimination legally,” said Sagda’s Pieter van Niekerk.
The association wants Uber to train its drivers to provide services to persons with disabilities who are accompanied by assistance dogs, whether they use UberAssist or not.
The court application adds that if Uber fails to comply with section 21(2)(e) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000, the e-hailing service should be held liable for a damages payment of R10 million.
“This application concerns the infringement of the right to human dignity, the right to equality, the right to not be unfairly discriminated against and the right of freedom of movement of persons with disabilities who have chosen to be assisted in their daily lives by assistance dogs,” Venter said.
The M&G previously reported on a case of discrimination involving the South African National Council for the Blind’s assistive technology centre manager Hanif Kruger, who was left stranded in the night after an UberAssist driver refused to allow his guide dog into the vehicle.
“Even though I explained my dog’s role and training, he stubbornly refused to understand or accommodate us. It was an unsettling experience that left me alone in a dangerous location, where I was robbed just last year,” Kruger said at the time.
In the latest matter, lawyers at Shepstone & Wylie said they were waiting for the Johannesburg high court to assign a judge to the case.