The Massachusetts attorney general’s office is examining how Uber and Lyft ensure equal access for people with disabilities, a spokeswoman for the attorney general told Reuters, adding to numerous other business issues facing the two companies.

Disabilities rights activists have questioned how Uber and Lyft drivers handle passengers in wheelchairs and the blind, but the Massachusetts inquiry appears to be the first from an attorney general, opening a new area of scrutiny for the companies.

The Massachusetts AG’s civil rights division reached out to the companies this week to discuss issues related to equal access, spokeswoman Jillian Fennimore said. The office has not taken any formal actions, she said.

When it comes to access, the National Federation of the Blind of California accused Uber in a lawsuit last year of discrimination by refusing to transport guide dogs. A San Francisco federal judge has said the case can proceed.

Uber said it regularly speaks with advocates and policy makers about making Uber accessible to riders and drivers with disabilities.

“We have teams dedicated to continuing to expand that access further for the disabled community in Massachusetts and nationwide,” the company said in a statement.

A Lyft representative could not be immediately be reached for comment.

Uber is a well known sharing-economy company operating in 57 countries with an estimated value of more than $40 billion. Lyft’s valuation is about $2.5 billion.

Both companies are involved in legal and regulatory proceedings on a range of subjects, including whether their drivers should be treated as employees rather than contractors.

In a blog post this month, Uber said it has a partnership with the National Federation of the Blind to obtain feedback from the visually impaired community.

In Texas, Jennifer McPhail sued Lyft last year, accusing the company of not having a wheelchair accessible vehicle operating in Austin.

The case is currently pending and Lyft has asked that it be sent to arbitration, according to the Travis County court clerk’s office.

This week, Uber announced a new option called uberASSIST, which is designed to provide additional assistance to seniors and people with disabilities.

Drivers are specifically trained to assist riders into vehicles and can accommodate folding wheelchairs and scooters, the company said in a blog post.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Apple Store employees who sued Apple Iover bag searches at the iPhone maker’s 52 brick and mortar outlets in California had their case certified as a class-action by a federal judge on Thursday.

The ruling, from U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco, is part of a 2013 lawsuit alleging Apple should compensate thousands of store employees for the time taken to search their bags to ensure they did not steal any merchandise.

At least two Apple retail store workers complained directly to Chief Executive Tim Cook that the technology company’s policy of checking retail employees’ bags as a security precaution was embarrassing and demeaning, according to court filings made public earlier in the case.

Lawsuits certified as class actions allow plaintiffs to sue as a group and generally give them more leverage to negotiate a settlement. Class members in the bag search case include more than 12,000 current and former employees, the ruling said.

An Apple representative declined to comment.

Plaintiffs Amanda Frlekin and Dean Pelle alleged that “screenings” or bag searches, designed to discourage theft, are conducted every time sales reps leave the store, including for meal breaks. Lawsuits from within Apple’s ranks are rare.

One worker, whose name was blacked out of a court filing, told Cook in a 2012 message that Apple managers “are required to treat ‘valued’ employees as criminals.”

Cook forwarded it to top retail and human resources executives with the query: “Is this true?” The court filing did not include what responses Cook received.

Apple had argued in court filings that the case was not suitable for class action status because not all store managers conducted bag searches, and any searches that did occur took a tiny amount of time which don’t deserve compensation.

Alsup ruled that those issues could be litigated at trial.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Andrew Hay and David Gregorio)

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Ride service Uber has reached a tentative settlement in a lawsuit brought by the family of a 6-year-old girl who died in a San Francisco car accident, according to court filings.

The girl, Sofia Liu, died after she, her younger brother and their mother were hit by a car in a San Francisco crosswalk on New Year’s Eve in 2013. At the time of the crash, the driver was logged on to the Uber X smartphone app and was available to provide rides, the lawsuit said.

Liu’s family asked the court to keep terms of the settlement confidential, court filings showed, citing the privacy of her brother.

“The settlement is confidential and the family will only say that while nothing will ever bring Sofia back, they are grateful to the American judicial system for providing them a way to resolve the legal issues raised by Sofia’s death,” Christopher Dolan, attorney for the Liu family, said in a statement.

Uber said in a statement, “The Lius suffered a terrible tragedy and our hearts go out to them. While we cannot ease their pain, we do hope that this settlement helps the family move forward.”

Uber is a well known sharing-economy company operating in 57 countries with an estimated value of more than $40 billion.

It has generated controversy and in some places opposition. Uber is involved in several legal proceedings to determine if its drivers are independent contractors or employees entitled to benefits.

That debate spilled into U.S. presidential politics this week, with Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton saying on-demand companies raise “hard questions” about workplace protection and what a good job will look like in the future.

On Tuesday, a Clinton aide said she had no problem with Uber, but rather questions about what such business models mean for workers.

The case in San Francisco Superior Court is Ang Liang Liu et al. vs. Uber Technologies et al., 14-536979.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Christian Plumb and Cynthia Osterman)

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

The former Uber driver who won a potentially landmark employment ruling against the ride-hailing company told Reuters on Wednesday she relied on her years of running a phone sex company to take on Uber, one of Silicon Valley’s biggest private companies.

Barbara Ann Berwick represented herself, without an attorney, before the California Labor Commission, which found earlier this month that she had been an Uber employee, not an independent contractor, and thus was entitled to be reimbursed for expenses.

The ruling made waves in the tech world on Wednesday as it could impact the way many sharing-economy companies operate. Uber said the decision did not apply to other workers and has appealed it to San Francisco Superior Court.

Now a financial consultant, Berwick said she learned the nuances of contractor law when she owned a phone sex business — “Linda’s Lip Service.” The company employed some workers but the “fantasy artists” who spoke to customers were all independent contractors.

“I had to make sure I did everything right,” she told Reuters in an interview shortly after the decision was published.

Under California law, workers are deemed employees if the company exerts a certain degree of control over how they do their jobs. The commission wrote in Berwick’s ruling that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation.”

Classifying Uber drivers as employees could open the company up to considerably higher costs, including Social Security, workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance.

Analysts say that such a change could affect Uber’s valuation, currently above $40 billion, and the valuation of other companies that rely on large networks of individuals to provide rides, clean houses and other services.

Uber had argued that its drivers are independent contractors, not employees, and that it is “nothing more than a neutral technology platform.”

At a March hearing on her claim, Berwick faced two company attorneys and cross-examined an Uber product manager. Although she took on Uber by herself, Berwick will likely have a friend who is an attorney represent her now that the case is in court.

A Texas native and over 6 feet tall, Berwick moved to San Francisco in the 1960s and in many ways exemplifies the city’s colorful political fabric. She now works out of her home in the Anza Vista neighborhood with sparkling views of San Francisco’s iconic Sutro tower.

She is transsexual, polyamorous but in a longtime domestic partnership with a woman, and unsuccessfully ran for local office in 2010. One of her campaign planks was to offer a reward for information leading to the prosecution of anyone dealing in date rape drugs.

Berwick was a driver for Uber for nearly two months last year before she quit, saying the money was not what she expected and management was uncommunicative.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Dina Kyriakidou and Leslie Adler)

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

App-based ride service Uber, and smaller rival Lyft, face separate lawsuits seeking class action status in San Francisco federal court, brought on behalf of drivers who contend they are employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gas and vehicle maintenance. The drivers currently pay those costs themselves.

A ruling against either company could significantly raise their costs beyond the lawsuit’s scope and force them to pay social security, workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance. That could affect the valuations for other startups that rely on large networks of individuals to provide rides, clean houses and other services.

At a court hearing on Friday, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen said Uber’s bid for a pretrial ruling its drivers are contractors is a “tough argument” to make, given that the drivers serve Uber’s business goals.

“The idea that Uber is simply a software platform, a service provider and nothing else, I don’t find that a very persuasive argument,” Chen said.

Ultimately, a jury might have to decide the issue, he added.

The hearing came a day after a similar one involving Lyft. In that case, U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria said whether drivers are employees or contractors is “very difficult” to decide, but that California law appears to favor the drivers. Chhabria has not yet ruled.

Uber has raised more than $4 billion from prominent venture capital firms such as Benchmark and Google Ventures, valuing the company at $40 billion and making it the most valuable U.S. startup. Lyft has raised $331 million from Andreessen Horowitz, Founders Fund and other investors.

The drivers have not yet specified how much money they are seeking in damages.

Drivers argue they should be considered employees because Uber and Lyft can hire and fire them and require them to accept a certain percentage of rides, and to pass background checks.

Uber and Lyft counter that drivers control their own schedules, are not assigned a territory, and are not supplied with any equipment apart from an iPhone and a sign.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; editing by Andre Grenon)

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.