That doesn't even make sense. Any place that accommodates the public is bound by the ADA. Most buildings are owned by private companies, but they are still required to be ADA-compliant.
The absolutely insane thing about all of this is that the clinic already had most of the accommodations in question. They had accessible tables already, they just didn't teach front desk staff about them and had policies set up that required doctors to work exclusively in specific areas. The only significant change was a bathroom remodel, and they're not a small clinic by any means. But the fact that they dragged her criminal history into the light made absolutely no sense, compounded by the fact that said criminal history involved getting arrested specifically to fight access violations like that one.
Not at all surprised by Uber's tactic here. Sickens me that we still have to fight very basic battles like these 25 years after the ADA was passed. I just want to grab some people and shake them until loose braincells fall into place or something.
Edit: Oh, right, and opposing counsel wanted the passwords to her Gmail and Facebook so they could read anything she wrote about the clinic in question. They also considered expanding that request to anyone she may have spoken to/emailed about them (I.e. me as her boyfriend.) I wish they'd have tried that so I could pull in counsel of my own.
Whatever building she was going to passed the ADA requirement at the time of construction. Businesses are loathe to remodel buildings because of ADA compliance [1]. Therefore, the negotiations that your girlfriend was engaging in suggest that these were not negotiations, but trying to accommodate her issues. At which time, your girlfriend can take her business elsewhere or try to work within the parameters of the buildings ADA requirements at the time of construction.
Alternatively, you can file a frivolous lawsuit to try and force a business to fix the issue.
A good defense attorney would bring forward past activism to prove that the plaintiff's background suggests a history of causing issues for businesses. Who knows, this may show that she is one of the disability filers who just does it over [2] and over in what some claim are legalized extortion [3]. The defense is merely trying to show that she may be associated with such groups, seek counsel from these groups, and other items. That being said, do not give those passwords unless they get a subpoena, because they do not need it unless the judge agrees.
All this being said, I do agree with you on the ADA compliance. I walk through stores and bring up with employees that certain areas are not ADA accessible, tight walkways or weird floor movements, I AM LOOKING AT YOU FORMER HOLLISTER LAYOUT. The problem for actual disabled people are the jerks who take advantage of ADA to force compliance issues beyond a reasonable doubt and in the case of the Uber, I understand that people might not want fake service animals in the car tearing up their luxurious leather interior.
[1] http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan/19/disability-lawsui...
[2] http://legalnewsline.com/issues/tort-reform/254776-eight-pla...
[3] http://overlawyered.com/2014/04/nbc-affiliate-california-ada...
The "jerks filing disability lawsuits" trope is one that the media likes to trot out for a good story, and which should really go away. The ADA in states other than, I think it's California, only allows you to sue for compliance, not for additional damages. I'm not saying that you're claiming this, but it isn't easy or rewarding to bring one of these lawsuits because all you can hope for after hours of work is to be able to use a bathroom somewhere you couldn't before. My GF was indeed subpoenaed, and was reduced to tears just because she wanted an accessible table and bathroom at her doctor's office. The "take your business elsewhere" argument is also a tough one to uphold when a) even hospitals have inaccessible bathrooms in their own rooms, so there's no guarantee that you'll find an accessible business on your next time out and b) you've already forged a relationship with a doctor who understands your needs. FTR, she had already taken her business elsewhere several times that year by virtue of needing tests done at other facilities, and in addition to the same "no accessible tables" argument she was almost dropped by staff who refused to listen to her and who insisted on doing things their own way. Being able to take your business elsewhere and having a better outcome is a point of able-bodied privilege.
This is extremely dangerous as behavior, anyway, the judge decided to proceed I am curious to see what will the outcome be.