Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Mobile
  3. News

Uber background checks on drivers missed ex-convicts, prosecutors say

Trevor Mogg
By

uber x berlin june black car
Uber
Uber is now worth such a huge amount, and continues to expand its ride-hailing service at such a rate, that it must be doing something right. What it’s not doing right, according to California prosecutors, are background checks on its drivers, with claims this week alleging Uber has been occasionally employing drivers with convictions for murder and sex offenses despite insistence its screening system is among the most effective in the industry.

The prosecutors assertions, made on Wednesday and reported by the NY Times, were presented as an amendment to a consumer protection lawsuit filed in December that accuses Uber of misleading the public about the safety of the service as well as the robustness of its background checks on new drivers.

Recommended Videos

The district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles note in the lawsuit that Uber refrains from running fingerprint checks on those applying for work as a driver, while the procedure is a necessity for new taxi drivers in California.

Related

They said the ride-hailing service’s existing procedures, which include checks of county, federal, and multi-state criminal background records, led to the company missing criminal records for 25 Uber applicants in San Francisco and Los Angeles, adding that this was partly due to Uber ignoring a database listing some 30,000 registered sex offenders, and also because its checks only cover the preceding seven years.

“So, for example, if someone was convicted of kidnapping eight years ago, and they were just paroled last week — they just got out of prison — the Uber background check process will not identify the person as a convicted kidnapper,” San Francisco district attorney George Gascón said in a press conference Wednesday.

Drivers that slipped through Uber’s net included one released in 2008 after spending 26 years in jail for second-degree murder — he changed his name before applying to become a driver. The lawsuit says a fingerprint test would’ve brought the matter to light and enabled Uber to act accordingly.

In a statement to the NY Times, Uber said that no checking system is “100-percent foolproof. ” It added that checks on former taxi drivers applying to join Uber, “uncovered convictions for driving under the influence, rape, attempted murder, child abuse and violence,” suggesting that in some cases its own checks are more effective than those of the California taxi industry.

The company has also this year been making moves to improve the safety of both riders and drivers with a raft of measures that include, for example, the gradual rollout of incident response teams available around the clock to address “serious safety concerns.”

Editors' Recommendations

Topics
Trevor Mogg
Trevor Mogg
Contributing Editor
Not so many moons ago, Trevor moved from one tea-loving island nation that drives on the left (Britain) to another (Japan)…
Recording rides won’t fix Uber’s assault problem, lawyers say, but it’s a start
An Uber App on a smartphone.

Thorough background checks, kicking accused predators off the apps, reporting assaults to police, and working more closely with authorities. These might be reasonable ways for ridesharing apps like Uber and Lyft to deal with the tsunami of complaints the companies face from riders who say their drivers have sexually assaulted them. Or, more easily, you could just record your ride on your phone.

Indeed, Uber on Wednesday announced it would be rolling out a new feature on the app: The ability to make audio recordings of rides and send the audio to the company in the case of severe misconduct.

Read more
Uber just got hit with a massive fine over how it classifies its drivers
uber settles driver background check case man driving in car the city ride share lyft getaround zipcar

It’s an issue that has been rumbling on ever since the first Uber hit the streets back in 2011: Are the men and women that operate vehicles on Uber’s platforms “employees of the company,” or are they, as an Uber executive once described them, “independent, third-party transportation providers”?

Uber has always considered them as self-employed, which exempts it from having to offer the kind of labor protections and benefits enjoyed by regular company employees, saving it a huge amount of money in the process.

Read more
Uber is now arguing that it doesn’t actually have any drivers
An Uber App on a smartphone.

If you've been living a life where you thought Uber had “drivers,” it’s time to rethink your entire existence.
In 2017, Uber executive Nicholas Valentino, the operations manager for the company’s Atlanta operations at the time, repeatedly corrected the plaintiff’s attorney in a case when the latter referred to the people operating cars on Uber’s platform as “drivers,” the Washington Post reported Monday.
According to Valentino, they are not drivers. Instead, he wanted those individuals referred to as “independent, third-party transportation providers."
If that sounds like an off-the-cuff remark, think again. Apparently, Valentino repeated the claim a total of 16 times in the course of the case. The case, Jessicka Harris v. Uber, was filed by a woman who almost lost her leg when she was struck by a vehicle being operated on Uber’s behalf that she claimed had veered off the road.
In that same case, Uber was asked to “admit or deny that Uber is in the business of providing transportation,” to which the company’s attorneys also repeatedly “denied.”
Uber later settled the case out of court but has maintained throughout a number of similar cases that it does not employ its drivers, going as far as to say about one driver that it “never had an agency, employment, partnership, joint venture, or joint enterprise relationship with him.”
Gives you the warm fuzzies, right?
The transcript of the 2017 case comes as Uber is fighting a similar but different battle in its home state of California regarding whether or not its “third-party transportation providers” should be considered employees.
Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill AB5, which will give gig workers some of the same labor protections and benefits afforded to regular employees of companies, including health care subsidies, paid parental leave, overtime pay, and a guaranteed minimum hourly wage. It also gives employees the ability to unionize.
Uber strongly opposes the bill and said that the majority of the drivers on the platform would prefer to stay independent and have flexibility rather than be classified as employees.
“We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now. But we will also continue to advocate for the independence and choice that drivers tell us again and again in surveys, polls, focus groups, and personal conversations that they value most,” Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, said in a blog post after Newsom signed the bill.
“Today, drivers have control over when, where, and how they work," West said. "They can choose to work for any of our competitors at the same time, and many do. In the U.S., 92% of drivers drive less than 40 hours per week, and 45% of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week. This would all change dramatically if they were employees. We will continue to defend the innovation that makes that kind of choice, flexibility, and independence a reality for over 200,000 drivers in California.”
AB5 is expected to go into effect on January 1, 2020.

Read more