Ho v. The Hertz Corporation

Scroll to case documents Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Status:

In February 2024, DRA filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California against national car rental company Hertz to end its systemic civil rights violations against people with disabilities who need hand controls to operate a rental car.

While there are many configurations, hand controls generally consist of a mechanism that allows drivers to accelerate and brake using one hand, and a “spinner knob” that allows for steering with the other hand. Though a single model of hand control may not work in every car, there are many models available, such that hand controls can be installed and used in virtually any car on the market today. Read the complaint.

For many years, Hertz had a policy of providing hand controls for people with disabilities in a wide variety of its rental cars. Unfortunately, in recent years Hertz has made its services less accessible to people with disabilities by drastically reducing the models and types of vehicles that may be reserved with hand controls. This means that Hertz openly excludes people who need hand controls from renting a variety of vehicle categories that are available to the company’s nondisabled customers.

By depriving customers who need hand controls of the opportunity to rent whole categories of vehicles available to nondisabled customers, Hertz is denying people with disabilities the full and equal enjoyment of its goods and services that is their legal right under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

DRA represents two individuals—Christina Mills and Carina Ho—who use wheelchairs and require hand controls to operate a rental car. On multiple occasions, they have sought to rent a vehicle from Hertz but have found that hand controls were only available on an extremely limited (and often, more expensive) set of Hertz vehicles.

People with disabilities have been asking Hertz to revise its discriminatory hand control policies since at least 2016, and in January 2024 Plaintiffs sent the company a final letter asking that it voluntarily do so. Unfortunately, Hertz once again refused to make any changes, leaving us no choice but to file suit.Ho

The case is Ho, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation, et al., Civ. No. __________ (N.D. Cal.).

Disability: Case Area: ,

Case Files