Arguments that Uber Technologies Inc. is not beholden to the same Americans with Disabilities Act requirements as other transportation companies did not pass one federal judge's sniff test.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California ruled Friday that two New Orleans residents have grounds to sue Uber over the company's failure to extend its UberWAV service in the city, which allows users to call for a wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV).

Despite offering the feature in cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, and Washington, D.C, Uber and its Morgan, Lewis & Bockius attorneys attempted to knock out the ADA suit by referring the individuals who use wheelchairs to other companies that provide wheelchair-accessible transportation in New Orleans, claiming it was outside of the company's "area of specialization."

"Defendants, however, refer plaintiffs to other transportation providers not because they would do the same for non-disabled riders, but because they simply do not want to accept the logistical and financial cost of serving them," Seeborg wrote in the opinion. "A cardiologist may not send a disabled patient with a heart murmur to an orthopedist, and Uber cannot refer plaintiffs to other transportation companies."

Seeborg also said that Uber's claim "that it is 'not a transportation company' strains credulity, given the company advertises itself as a 'transportation system.' " Since plaintiffs are asking the company to provide an identical service it already provides in other areas, it does not lie outside its area of specialization, he wrote.

The order marks a partial win for plaintiffs lawyers from Bizer & DeReus in New Orleans; ATA Law Group in Albany, California; and Public Justice. In an email statement, the plaintiffs team said, "Stephan Namisnak and Francis Falls are thrilled with Judge Seeborg's thorough opinion. Congress passed the ADA 30 years ago to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities. Mr. Namisnak and Mr. Falls want to take an Uber just like everyone else."

Stephen Namisnak, who has paraplegia and is missing his right arm, and Francis Falls, who has muscular dystrophy, brought the complaint in October 2017. Seeborg found that Uber has modified its app to include UberPUPPIES and UberDONUTS in far less time than the almost three years since the complaint was filed. But besides adding the feature to the app, the judge said that the plaintiffs presented evidence that Uber has contracted with WAV providers and incentivized drivers to work with the UberWAV service in other cities.

"While the reasonableness of plaintiffs' requested modifications may be challenged at a later stage, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, their allegations are plausible and must be taken as true," he said. "They establish Uber could reasonably assemble a fleet of WAVs in New Orleans and modify its app to provide UberWAV."

However, Seeborg dismissed with prejudice Namisnak and Falls' claim that UberWAV qualifies as an auxiliary aid and service that Uber has failed to provide. Under the ADA, companies are required to provide auxiliary aids if it does not result in "undue burden." Uber argued that the auxiliary aid provision is intended for people with hearing and vision impairments, citing a Department of Justice rule that excludes people with other disabilities from invoking the provision.

Seeborg said that Congress' interpretation of who can take advantage of auxiliary aids remains unclear, so he used a test formulated in Chevron U.S.A. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council to help determine deference to Congressional intent. A prong of Chevron, asks whether Congress' interpretation is "unreasonable." The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to argue what made Congress' interpretation unreasonable.

"It seems the DOJ simply chose 'among competing reasonable interpretations' of the ADA," he wrote. "The courts have no authority to second-guess it. Thus plaintiffs, as a matter of law, cannot plausibly allege an 'auxiliary aids and services' claim.

Uber and its Morgan Lewis attorneys did not respond to a request for comment Friday afternoon. Plaintiffs lawyers also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.