​

Formal Notice of Repeated ADA Violations and Demand for Settlement

​

July 4, 2025, 2:10 PM

to support@lyft.com, support

Lyft Trust and Safety Department
185 Berry Street, Suite 5000
San Francisco, CA 94107
support@lyft.com

​

Dear Lyft Trust & Safety Department,

This letter constitutes a formal demand for resolution regarding multiple violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by Lyft drivers, which have caused significant and ongoing emotional harm to me and disrupted my legal, professional, and personal obligations.

Summary of Repeated ADA Violations:

1. July 30, 2024 – Denied Access + False Accusation
   A Lyft driver in Burbank, California refused to allow me and my psychiatric service dog, Love, into the vehicle. I clearly informed the driver she was a service animal. The driver denied access and later falsely accused my dog of attacking him, a report that was wholly fabricated. The incident was witnessed by a restaurant owner and supported by a follow-up ride with a second driver. Lyft ultimately deactivated the initial driver’s account after he failed to respond to your inquiry. Although, at this time, I could have pursued this case further.  I chose to believe corrections would be made moving forward. 

2. Three Prior Incidents August 2024 thru June 2025
   On at least three additional occasions, I had to educate drivers on ADA obligations after they initially refused to transport me due to my service dog. I did not file formal reports - again - out of goodwill, as each driver eventually relented after being informed of their legal duties. However, the repeated pattern reflects a larger failure of driver training.

3. July 3, 2025 – Orlando, FL (Most Recent Incident, With Video Evidence)
   I was picked up by a Lyft driver named Elaine, who frowned upon seeing my dog. When I asked if bringing my service animal was okay, she replied dismissively, “Well, I’m here already, so yeah, I guess.” Although she became more cordial, this initial skepticism highlights the lack of driver preparedness and awareness.

4. ​

Later that same day, I messaged my return driver in advance, disclosing I was traveling with a service dog. Upon arrival, he refused service outright, stating, “Your dog is not allowed in my car,” even after I explained she was a service animal. The service she provides is for PTSD. He refused to allow us into the car and eventually cancelled the ride. I have video footage (see attached) of this interaction, in which he clearly denies access with a verbal “no” and a visible head shake.  Despite my courtesy message, informing him I had a service dog with me, I was still "illegally" denied service.  This was the last straw. 

​

Legal Grounds and Precedent:

• Lyft entered into a 2020 settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ Case No. 202-36-308) requiring implementation of robust driver education around ADA compliance. The DOJ made it clear that denying rides to individuals with service animals constitutes discrimination under Title III of the ADA.

• In April 2021, Uber was ordered to pay $1.1 million in damages to a blind woman after repeated denials of service due to her guide dog. That case, like mine, involved multiple violations, emotional distress, and a pattern of systemic failure.

• ​

Lyft has demonstrated noncompliance with its DOJ obligations. These are not isolated incidents — they represent a pattern of ADA violations, misinformed drivers, and emotional injury to individuals relying on legitimate psychiatric service animals.

My Demands:

I am offering Lyft a single opportunity to resolve this matter peacefully and privately before legal action is pursued.

1. Settlement Payment:
   I am requesting a six-figure financial settlement, with the specific amount to be determined by your team, reflecting:

   • Emotional distress

   • Harm to my mental health during an active litigation period

   • Reputational damage due to a false report

   • Out-of-pocket inconvenience, lost time, and transportation delays

2. ADA Policy Reform:
   I demand a written summary of Lyft’s updated ADA training protocol, with:

   • Specifics on how drivers are educated and tested

   • Frequency of training or recertification

   • Clear consequences for noncompliance

   • A plan for improvement and implementation timeline

If these two demands are not met, I will pursue legal action, including but not limited to:

• Filing a federal ADA lawsuit

• Seeking punitive and compensatory damages

• Submitting a complaint to the Department of Justice

• Publishing the video evidence and documentation in public and professional forums

• Engaging legal representation to initiate discovery regarding company-wide compliance failures

• ​

This is Lyft’s one opportunity to resolve this matter discreetly and in good faith.

 Please respond within 10 business days (July 18, 2025) of this letter’s receipt. Failure to do so will be taken as a refusal to engage, and legal proceedings will follow accordingly. If I do not hear from you with an offer  and policy reform plan within 10 business days, expect to hear from my legal team and we will be addressing the following: 

Documented Violations and Procedural Failures by Lyft Drivers

​

• Failure to Provide ADA-Compliant Service:
  The driver refused transportation despite being informed that my dog is a trained service animal, which is a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title III).

• False Accusation of Attack:
  The original driver in July 2024 falsely reported that my dog attacked him, despite video, witness testimony, and the fact that my dog never entered the vehicle.

• Failure to Review Rider Notes or Tags:
  Multiple drivers admitted they did not review my rider profile, which was/is supposed to include notes indicating that I travel with a service animal — a clear failure of protocol and platform design.

• Refusal of Service Despite Advance Notice:
  Prior to the July 3, 2025 incident, I courteously messaged the driver ahead of time to inform them I was traveling with a service dog, yet the driver refused service upon arrival.

• Driver Ignorance of Lyft’s Service Animal Policy:
  Drivers have openly cited personal rules or misinformation, such as saying “I don’t accept dogs,” despite clear Lyft policy mandating acceptance of service animals.

• Failure to Cancel Appropriately:
  When the driver refused service, he could not find a way to cite the proper reason for cancellation, highlighting a flawed in-app system that fails to support ADA-compliant behavior.

• Inconsistent Enforcement of Policy:
  One driver was permanently deactivated (2023) while others were only “educated,” demonstrating inconsistent consequences and lack of systemic accountability.

• Emotional Distress During a Period of High Stress:
  The incidents occurred during an active legal proceeding in which I am involved, and caused significant psychological harm requiring service dog support in the first place.

• Violation of 2020 DOJ Agreement with Lyft:
  These repeated incidents demonstrate Lyft’s failure to uphold its agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, which mandated that all drivers be trained in ADA compliance following documented complaints of service animal discrimination.

• Breach of Duty of Care to Vulnerable Riders:
  As a passenger with a PTSD diagnosis and a documented psychiatric service dog, I am entitled to ride without fear of rejection, humiliation, or misrepresentation — rights repeatedly violated by your platform.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Troy Byer

Doctor of Clinical Psychology