Skip to main content

Uber Sued By Driver Over Background Checks


Late last month, Abdul Mohamed, a driver for Uber, filed a class action suit and alleged that Uber ran background checks on applicants without their knowledge or authorization and used the information to make hiring decisions.  Also included in the suit was Uber's wholly owned subsidiary, Rasier LLC and the employment screening agnecy, Hirease LLC.  

Mohamed alleged that he went on Uber's website to apply for a different position within the company, as he was already a driver.  Part of the online application required Mohamed to complete a "FREE online background check."  Although the background check document included an authorization for Uber to access consumer reports, it allegedly did not conspicuously disclose in a separate document that the report may be used to make a hiring decision.  If true, this is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). 

Once Mohamed completed the application, he was told he would need a new car for the position.  After he bought a car and had worked the new post for a short time, Mohamed got an e-mail that told him he could not have the job, a decision that was based in part upon information Uber obtained through a Consumer Reporting Agency.  Although the e-mail claimed Mohamed had already been given a copy of the consumer report, a description of his rights, and an opportunity to dispute the information in the report, Mohamed alleged he never received them. 

This will be an interesting case to keep an eye on, as Mohamed alleged that the defendants violated several federal and state laws when the background checks were used.


A copy of the complaint can be found here:  http://hr.cch.com/ELD/MohammedUberCompl.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more