[This report has been updated to clarify Uber's position.]

A federal judge in San Francisco has allowed a civil lawsuit filed against Uber by an advocacy group for the blind to proceed.

The case was initially filed in September 2014 by the National Federation of the Blind of California and one individual plaintiff, who alleged that the quasi-taxi company is in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), along with other state disabilities laws.

Uber had initially filed to have the case dismissed, but the judge’s ruling last Friday means the case will proceed.

According to the initial civil complaint, UberX drivers routinely refused to serve blind riders who travel with service animals:

Further, UberX drivers across the United States are likewise refusing to transport blind individuals, including identified UberX drivers who repeatedly denied rides to one blind woman on twelve separate occasions, charged blind riders cancellation fees, and abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather, all because of guide dogs. In total, Plaintiffs are aware of more than thirty instances where drivers of UberX vehicles refused to transport blind individuals with service animals. UberX drivers that refused to transport these blind individuals did so after they initially agreed to transport the riders. The UberX drivers denied the requested transportation service after the drivers had arrived and discovered that the riders used service animals. In addition, some UberX drivers seriously mishandle guide dogs or harass blind customers with guide dogs even when they do not outright deny the provision of taxi service. For example, Leena Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver forced Ms. Dawes’ guide dog into the closed trunk of the UberX sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. When Ms. Dawes realized where the driver had placed her dog, she pleaded with the driver to pull over so that she could retrieve her dog from the trunk, but the driver refused her request. Other blind customers with guide dogs have been yelled at by Uber drivers who are hostile toward their guide dogs.

In its motion to dismiss, Uber argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing. It also maintained that Uber is not a "public accommodation" and therefore was outside the scope of the ADA—an argument that United States Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins found did not hold water.

The plaintiffs want Uber to be compelled to take passengers with service animals, to declare that Uber was engaging in discriminatory behavior, and to award monetary damages and attorney’s fees.

The case is set to go to a management conference in San Francisco in early June 2015.

Uber declined to respond to direct questions, but spokeswoman Kristin Carvell sent a statement: