Judge urges Lyft, plaintiffs to work toward solution in suit about rides for disabled

A federal judge on Thursday urged Lyft and advocates for the disabled to set aside the acrimony of a class-action lawsuit and find some way the ride-hailing company can expand the availability of wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

"It is a terrible shame to my mind, a terrible shame, that a company of the depth and breadth and innovation of Lyft and organizations that represent people who God has put on them the additional burden of having to live with devices to get around, it shocks my mind that there isn't some reasonable way to put the armor to the side and to come up with some kind of a solution that might be of assistance to both agendas," U.S. District Judge Philip Halpern said in White Plains federal court.

But a lawyer for Lyft, who called the issue "complicated" despite the company's efforts, said they were not interested in any further discussions.

Halpern spoke at the conclusion of testimony in the four-day trial of Harriet Lowell and Westchester Disabled on the Move v. Lyft. He said he will rule on the facts and the law sometime next month after each side submits final arguments, and insisted he had not yet made up his mind. But he expressed frustration that some middle ground couldn't be found that would help the disabled get WAV rides on the Lyft app while not overburdening the company financially.

The plaintiffs claim Lyft discriminates against the disabled in violation of the Americans with Disabilites Act and New York State Human Rights Law by limiting the availability of WAVs on its app.

They seek a ruling in favor of three classes ‒ the disabled in Westchester, New York State and the rest of the country ‒ that would force Lyft to make WAVs available.

Lyft provides access to WAVs in New York City and eight other municipalities in the country where it was forced to by regulators. The company insists it is focused on improving WAV service in those areas and has not expanded to other areas of the country because it expects the chances of providing reliable, cost-effective service are low and fears reputational harm if it attempts expansion and fails.

The plaintiffs contend the company can do as it does in the nine areas in other places but chooses not to because it is not required.

Halpern suggested expanding service anywhere would be more desirable than the status quo but offered that a good place to start might be in Westchester, where the plaintiffs contend that frequent drop-offs by WAV drivers from New York City prove there is availability. He even suggested the two sides sit down with the head of the Westchester Taxi and Limousine Commission, Leandra Eustache, to see if a solution could be found there.

The plaintiffs had sought to call Eustache as a witness but Halpern ruled that her testimony would not have been relevant to the issues he must decide. In an affidavit before the trial she disputed Lyft's position that the county's rules prohibited the New York City WAV drivers from picking up passengers in Westchester.

Halpern said as the trial judge it wasn't his place to direct the two sides to talk or to try to mediate a solution, but hoped they would do so on their own.

"It is my plea as one human being to another," he said. "There's got to be a way here to a have a win-win so that the animosity leaves the room and that somebody can tell somebody, 'You know what? Forget what the judge did. Who cares what the judge did. We did something. We did a good thing business-wise. We did a good thing plaintiff-wise. Yeah it wasn't perfect.' Is there any hope here?"

He specifically asked the defendants. But Jiyun Cameron Lee, one of Lyft's lawyers, said that improving WAV service "is not an easy solution anywhere" and it wasn't like Eustache could just "wave a magic wand" to make WAV service happen in her county.

"It is not that simple," she said.

"Yes I get it. So is your answer yes or no?" Halpern asked.

"It is no," Lee said.

Halpern didn't even ask the other side.

Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a text later that they were "very willing" to negotiate a settlement that would provide some WAV service on Lyft in Westchester and elsewhere.

"We are shocked and saddened that Lyft rejected Judge Halpern's guidance that the parties attempt to reach a resolution." he said.

On Friday, a Lyft spokesperson said that the company continues to work with numerous partners to improve accessibility.

"But as the evidence presented at the trial showed, no private company or public entity has figured out how to provide on-demand transportation by wheelchair accessible vehicles at a reasonable cost today," they wrote in a statement, citing a limited supply of WAVs and their high cost.

The statement said Lyft understood the judge's question to be narrowly focused to either mediation or a discussion with the Westchester TLC.

"While we do not believe either of those options would be fruitful given the confines of litigation, Lyft remains open to discussions outside of the litigation process and we will continue to explore finding actionable solutions or partnerships to help serve this community," the statement read.