Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Tech
your username
5 days ago
On Monday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the District of Columbia District Court issued an opinion denying Uber Technologies Inc.âs motion to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA).
According to the opinion, âplaintiff Equal Rights Center (âERCâ) allege(d) that defendant Uber â a company that maintains a ride-sharing application that connects users to drivers â systemically discriminates against those disabled individuals in the District of Columbia who use non-foldable wheelchairs, because Uberâs wheelchair accessible ride-share services are allegedly far less reliable and predictable than its non-wheelchair accessible offerings.â Additionally, ERC also claimed that âUber requires wheelchair users to pay higher fares and endure longer wait times than people who use Uberâs standard transportation s
Protestors being arrested on Swann Street on June 1. Photograph by Evy Mages
On the evening of June 1, 2020, DC police “kettled” protesters who traveled uptown after feds cleared Lafayette Square with teargas so President Trump could take a photo in front of St. John’s Church. The police accounts of why they felt they had to contain and arrest protesters, some of whom spent the night with strangers in nearby houses, do not square with the accounts of more than 50 eyewitnesses, according to a new report from the ACLU of the District of Columbia, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firm Sidley Austin LLP.