The EmpLAWyerologist Firm

The Employer's Legal Wellness Professional

  • Home
  • About
    • About Janette Levey Frisch
    • How Can A Employer’s Legal Wellness Professional Help?
  • Our Services
    • Consulting
    • Investigations
    • Training
    • Keynote Speaking
    • Employment Practices Wellness Check-Up
  • Webinars & Seminars
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Schedule Your Free Consultation Today
You are here: Home / Pre-Employment Screening / Allegations of Sexual Assault By Uber Drivers Provide Key Lessons For Employers

Allegations of Sexual Assault By Uber Drivers Provide Key Lessons For Employers

November 22, 2017 by theemplawyerologist 1 Comment

Uber is facing another lawsuit. That may not sound like news at this point. This time it involves allegations of drivers sexually assaulting passengers. This is not the first time someone has leveled such allegations against an Uber driver, just one of the more recent. This lawsuit is in San Francisco. Other similar allegations involve drivers in New York City, Texas, India and Australia to name just a few. What’s going on? While I hope that none of you have these issues, could this happen to you? Are there preventive measures you can take to avoid being in the same type of situation? Absolutely. Read on to learn more…

(image from skylink.com.au)

Let’s start with that most recent lawsuit. Two women, identified as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed suit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated female Uber passengers, alleging that “thousands” of female passengers have been subjected to “rape sexual assault, physical violence and gender-motivated harassment” while using Uber’s services. The 2 named plaintiffs (albeit as Jane Doe) allege that they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers. Let’s come back to this case in a moment.

In August, an Uber driver in New York City allegedly drove an intoxicated woman from Manhattan to his home in Queens and had sex with her while she was unconscious. Police apparently have not yet found the driver. An Uber spokesperson did say that the report was “very concerning” and that Uber was “looking into it”.

A female passenger in India alleges that an Uber driver raped her. Oh, and that driver was already awaiting trial on at least four other criminal charges. He has since been sentenced to life in prison. To make matters worse, Uber is facing additional legal troubles over a former Uber executive managing to obtain her medical files and showing those records to Uber’s then CEO Travis Kalanick and SVP Emil Michael, after having them in his possession for months beforehand. That executive is no longer working at Uber, but the passenger has sued Uber for invasion of privacy.

It’s one thing when there’s one allegation or lawsuit, or even when there is more than one in one particular location. It’s an entirely different matter when these types of allegations materialize across the country, or, in this case, globally. If that’s not a pattern, well then, what is?

What does this pattern suggest for employers? Let’s return to the lawsuit just filed in San Francisco. In particular, the complaint says it very well:

“Uber has done everything possible to continue using low-cost, woefully inadequate background checks on drivers and has failed to monitor drivers for any violent or inappropriate conduct after they are hired. Nothing meaningful has been done to make rides safer for passengers — especially women. This is no longer an issue of “rogue” drivers who act unlawfully.”

Yes, adequate pre-screening of drivers, including criminal background checks and fingerprinting, and monitoring drivers after hiring them could probably have prevented most of the (alleged) assaults. (I’ve written about criminal background checks and liability for independent contractors here, here and here.) This point, however now shines a big spotlight on the elephant in the room: Uber’s loud insistence that its drivers are not “employees” and that it is not an employer. Uber stoutly asserts that it’s a  “technology platform,” allowing it to avoid regulations that would govern drivers for a taxi or limousine company. Uber, in arguing that it is not an employer (or a transportation company) is trying to avoid liability for negligent hiring and retention and skirt regulations that apply to taxi and limousine compaies. Here lies the rub: Even when you hire an independent contractor, you can still be liable for that person’s misconduct if your failure to take reasonable steps lead to someone else being harmed. In other words, even if Uber could win the argument that it is not an employer and its drivers are not employees (I’ve written about the classification issue here) that probably would not help them in this case.

OK, if you’ve read my other posts, you know already know the burning question: What can the rest of you employers learn from this particular Uber issue? When I have to sum things up in one sentence or less for clients, it often comes down to these three words: DON’T GET CUTE!

Uber is living proof that sometimes cute really is a four-letter word–and that it could cost you millions (or billions) of dollars. If you were jealous of Uber when its explosive growth started, if Uber was your model of how to run a lean and mean business and make lots of money, it should now be your model of what not to do. Calling yourself one thing to avoid having employer responsibilities when you are getting all the benefits of being an employer is a recipe for disaster. If you have people working for you –even if they are legitimately classified as independent contractors–and they have contact with the public, you will have some responsibility in ensuring that the people you hire are not a threat to others’ safety. In all likelihood you will also be liable when their actions or omissions harm others if you could have taken reasonable preventive measures.

Let’s end there for now. See you next week and don’t eat too much turkey!

That should be enough to hold you for now. We’ll continue next week, probably a little earlier than usual due to Thanksgiving. See you then!

Good news!  If you missed the live presentation, you can now get the recording of my webinar “Navigating the Employee Leave Overlap: FMLA, ADA and Workers’ Comp)”.

Click on the title above for more info.

Contents of this post are for educational/informational purposes only, are not legal advice, and do not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult with competent employment counsel in the state(s) in which you employ people with your specific questions.

Before choosing an attorney, you should give this matter careful thought.
The selection of an attorney is an important decision.
If you find this communication to be
inaccurate or misleading, you may report it to the Committee on Attorney Advertising
Hughes Justice Complex, CN 037, Trenton, NJ

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Pre-Employment Screening, Worker Classification Tagged With: Criminal Background Checks, employees vs independent contractors, independent contractors, independent contractors and negligent hiring, negligent hiring, negligent retention, Pre-Employment Screening, worker classification, worker misclassification

Comments

  1. Steve Brown says

    November 22, 2017 at 11:49 am

    As always, Janette, very informative and thought provoking article. Everyone, should always remain alert & aware. Oh, don’t use while totally intoxicated & unconscious, Better yet, don’t drink to that excess!

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tags

ADA ADAAA ADEA Americans with Disabilities Act Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act Civil Rights Act of 1964 co-employment disability discrimination Discrimination DOL EEOC employment discrimination Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Fair Labor Standards Act Family Medical Leave Act FLSA FMLA FMLA interference FMLA retaliation harassment Independent contractor joint employer joint employment National Labor Relations Act National Labor Relations Board NLRA NLRB overtime overtime pay Pre-Employment Screening reasonable accommodation reasonable accommodations religious discrimination retaliation sex discrimination sexual harassment sexual orientation discrimination Title VII US Department of Labor US Supreme Court wage and hour worker misclassification workplace harassment workplace safety workplace violence

Join Our Community

Join hundreds of other successful professionals and receive monthly updates and alerts regarding must-read employment law updates as well as invitations to our upcoming webinars.

Connect With The EmpLAWyerologist

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Register for this Webinar

How We Can Help

  • Consulting
  • Training
  • Investigations
  • Keynote Speaking
  • Employment Practices Wellness Check-Up

CONTACT US

Law Office of Janette Levey Frisch
"The EmpLAWyerologist" Firm - The Employer's Legal Wellness Professional
300 Carnegie Center Drive - Ste 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
(732) 902-0728
theemplawyerologist.com

All rights reserved. Copyright The Emplawyerologist Firm. Crafted with by 3P Creative Group.

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.