>Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable?
Yes, because they are employees of Uber and this is why they tried to argue that they were actually contractors to avoid liability.
>It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store.
A better analogy would be Cashiers repeatedly refusing to check out a blind women's groceries.
>Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'.
In the US at least all companies are beholden to the ADA and would certainly be liable to compliance. You seem to think that Uber drivers are not really employed by Uber which I don't think is a settled legal question but that argument was rejected in this case.
Yes, because they are employees of Uber and this is why they tried to argue that they were actually contractors to avoid liability.
>It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store.
A better analogy would be Cashiers repeatedly refusing to check out a blind women's groceries.
>Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'.
In the US at least all companies are beholden to the ADA and would certainly be liable to compliance. You seem to think that Uber drivers are not really employed by Uber which I don't think is a settled legal question but that argument was rejected in this case.