Uber will not be able to force a blind man into arbitration, after a Massachusetts court reversed a decision over his discrimination lawsuit
- Massachusetts' highest court on Monday reversed a decision allowing Uber to settle a discrimination lawsuit in arbitration.
- The case was brought by Christopher Kauders, a blind man who was denied service by three Uber drivers because of his guide dog.
- Uber in 2018 won the right to settle the case in arbitration because its terms and conditions said it could do so, but the court ruled they hadn't been prominent enough to constitute a binding contract.
A Massachusetts court has told Uber it can't force a blind man who is suing the company for discrimination into arbitration because it presented its terms and conditions in way that meant he was unlikely to read them, Ars Technica reports.
Plaintiff Christopher Kauders brought a discrimination case against Uber after three Uber drivers refused to give him a ride because he was accompanied by a guide dog.
In 2018, a judge ruled that Kauders would have to go to arbitration rather than court, as stipulated in Uber's terms and conditions. Once the case went to arbitration, the arbitrator found in favor of Uber on the grounds its drivers are contractors rather than employees, and therefore the company wasn't resposible for their behavior.
This has been overruled after Kauders' lawyers brought an appeal to Massachusetts' highest court, which found Uber's terms and conditions were not presented clearly enough to force Kauders to go to arbitration in the first place.
When Kauders originally signed up to an Uber account three years ago users were told they could click a link to read Uber's terms and conditions, but it was not necessary for them to create an account. This meant the court found the terms and conditions "did not constitute an enforceable contract."
Business Insider has contacted Uber for comment.
Uber's arbitration policies have come under fire before. In May 2018 the company reversed its arbitration policy for allegations of sexual assault and harrassment following pressure from critics, and in January 2019 a Canadian court said the company's arbitration policies take advantage of drivers.