The fight for wheelchair-accessible transportation services

People with mobility disabilities, wheelchair users in particular, typically find a limited range of wheelchair-accessible ground transportation options in many cities throughout the United States, especially when compared to the options available to their non-disabled peers. The promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was signed into law in 1990, was that people with disabilities would have equal opportunity and be able to fully participate in modern life. However, transportation providers nationwide have significant work to do to fulfill that promise for ground transportation, ensuring the basic ability to travel from point A to point B.

A recently filed putative class action complaint in the Northern District of California, Garrett v. WHC Worldwide, LLC and WHC shuttle, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-03904, highlights some of the work that remains to be done to level the playing field when it comes to airport transportation. In this case, plaintiffs are seeking wheelchair-accessible vehicle service from defendants who, as alleged in the complaint, operate airport transportation services known as SuperShuttle Express/Execucar (SuperShuttle) in many cities across the country. The plaintiffs are seeking this access so that they can travel to and from airports in the same way that their nondisabled peers can rely on this service.

Wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) exist and are the only way that many people with disabilities can travel. WAVs are vehicles equipped with ramps or lifts so that a wheelchair user can enter and exit the vehicle. WAVs have restraints and seatbelts to keep wheelchair users secured during their ride. The ramp or lift in a WAV is critical for two reasons. First, many wheelchair users cannot transfer from their wheelchair to a vehicle seat without assistance from someone trained in how to lift and transfer an individual or without the assistance of equipment that is designed to help transfer an individual. Second, many people need to use power wheelchairs, which can be operated with a joystick or other technological adaptation, because of their mobility limitations, as opposed to manual wheelchairs. Power wheelchairs tend to weigh much more and typically do not fold up the way a manual wheelchair does. In other words, even if a power wheelchair user had assistance with transferring to a vehicle seat, a WAV would still be needed to get them to their destination.

The Garrett complaint describes that, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff, Garrett, used SuperShuttle to travel to and from airports in multiple cities. According to the complaint, in recent months, SuperShuttle representatives have told each of the named plaintiffs in Garrett that no WAVs are available when they have tried to reserve one, despite the company's public representations regarding accessibility. See, e.g., https://www.supershuttle.com/terms/ (click "Accessible Transportation" dropdown arrow under "Special Handling" section) and https://www.supershuttle.com/ada/).  

That is where DRA comes in. DRA is a non-profit legal center with the specific mission of enforcing the ADA and other disability rights laws through impact litigation. When the ADA was passed, DRA's founders recognized the power of the statute to reimagine what was possible for Americans with disabilities. However, sweeping change would require - and continues to require - enforcing the statute through litigation or negotiations that occur in light of legal requirements. The statute also puts the burden of enforcement on disabled people. There are no ADA police to ensure entities are complying with the statute to create a more accessible society. Given that people with disabilities are historically marginalized and disproportionately low income, DRA's non-profit legal services are critical to creating the systemic change that the statute envisioned.    

Multiple well-established statutes require transportation services like SuperShuttle to include services for people who need WAVs. In Garrett, the plaintiffs allege violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 United States Code Section 12181, et seq., and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code Section 51, et seq. The complaint also details the convoluted gymnastics that the plaintiffs must navigate in the absence of WAV SuperShuttle service. For example, one option for Garrett is to hire someone on an hourly basis to drive her in her personal vehicle and then return it to her home, which could result in a 3-hour round trip in the San Francisco Bay Area. Another option, as explained in the complaint, is that she rides her powerchair to a BART station while her husband takes an inaccessible vehicle with their luggage, eventually meeting her at BART. Even this option requires that her flight be occurring during the times that BART is running and that each of the BART elevators she needs for the trip is functioning at the moment that she needs them. The complaint further details that plaintiff Pugh did not take a trip last month because she could not secure accessible transportation on both ends of the trip. These stories are just the tip of the iceberg.

With Garrett comes the potential to bring the transportation industry one step closer to the society envisioned by the disability rights movement. People with disabilities are living full and meaningful lives but are still fighting an uphill battle for basic access on many fronts, including transportation services--despite this year marking the 35th anniversary of the passage of the ADA. For more information, visit: https://dralegal.org/case/garrett-v-whc-worldwide/.