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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more