Trial begins in class-action lawsuit targeting Lyft's lack of vehicles for the disabled

A federal judge in White Plains will soon decide whether Lyft must provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles in Westchester, New York state and in the 95 percent of the country where the company does not do so.

But at the start of the trial in a class-action lawsuit Monday, U.S. District Judge Philip Halpern was trying to figure out how hard the company has bothered or even whether it has to.

In frequent back and forths with Isabella Gerundio, the head of Lyft's national WAV program, the judge wondered aloud about Gerundio's lack of knowledge about WAV service and regulations in most of the country and at one point said he was struggling with the "basic common sense of this thing."

"It just seems like you don't have any demand information, supply information, regulation information, you haven't experimented ... yet you want me to believe, no offense to you or Lyft, that you're actually concerned about this problem," he said.

"I care very deeply about this problem," Gerundio answered, but added that the chance of a successful WAV program in most of the country remained low.

The case was scheduled to continue Tuesday.

The plaintiffs, Harriet Lowell of White Plains and Yonkers-based Westchester Disabled on the Move, contend that Lyft discriminates against the disabled and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law by failing to provide the same access to transportation it affords those who are not disabled.

In only nine major cities around the country does Lyft provide WAVs, and those were only in places where regulators forced them to. Gerundio insisted that doing so elsewhere is cost-prohibitive, with an uncertain availability of the vehicles that usually cost $16,000 to $25,000 to lower the floor and install ramps.

She said the company has focused on making WAV service more reliable in those locations rather than expand to new areas, insisting that so far the company has failed to find a cost-effective, reliable way to ensure reliable WAV service.

She said the company fears reputational harm and exorbitant costs if it expands in other areas without being sure it can provide the service effectively.

Halpern emphasized more than once that he has not decided anything yet. He questioned why the company has not experimented in some other areas of the country — maybe there would be a resounding success, he offered — at least to have some documented proof that the effort was too costly or wouldn't provide adequate service.

He also questioned the plaintiffs' contention that a violation of the ADA has occurred.

"If the law doesn't require that (Lyft) attack this problem, why are we doing this? Why am I listening to this?" he asked.

The lawyers differed on whether the modifications sought by the plaintiffs — particularly that Lyft's app offer WAV service everywhere — were required by the ADA.

Jiyun Cameron Lee, one of Lyft's lawyers, insisted that the modification sought was not to a policy, practice or procedure of the company, but rather to a specialized service that a private business is not required to provide under the ADA.

One contention by the plaintiffs is that any provision of additional service would be an improvement and welcome to the disabled community.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson asked Gerundio in multiple ways whether the company ever heard from disabled people or their advocates that they'd prefer no access to wheelchair vehicles to service that was unreliable.

She acknowledged she had not but the last time she was asked a version of the question, said "I've heard reliability is very important to the community and I agree."