So fundamentally it sounds like Lyft will need to increase how much they pay drivers with ADA vehicles to incentivize them drive? Lyft would probably take a consistent loss on that, right?
The ADA grants rights to disabled people. If accessibility made pure economic sense, the ADA wouldn't need to exist in the first place. Lyft enjoys a profit by being allowed to operate on public roads, serving hundreds of millions of able-bodied people. The state grants Lyft that privilege under condition that they comply with the law, and ensure ADA accomodations for a small minority of disabled people.
Rights are a question of whether a trade-off is worth it. A small loss center is worth the major improvement in life for disabled people, which is why Congress mandated the law.
Except that ADA has undue hardship clause ( 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p) ) that (among other things) requires you to take into account the “net cost of the accommodation”.
Operating at reduced profit is one thing, but operating a loss I think would be interesting to see how the courts decide that — especially since the law appears to have scopes net cost to the accommodation, not overall expenses of the company.
5 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 21.7 ms ] threadRights are a question of whether a trade-off is worth it. A small loss center is worth the major improvement in life for disabled people, which is why Congress mandated the law.
Operating at reduced profit is one thing, but operating a loss I think would be interesting to see how the courts decide that — especially since the law appears to have scopes net cost to the accommodation, not overall expenses of the company.