A class lawsuit against Uber was filed by two female software developers in 2017. The lawsuit, which was joined by over 400 software engineers, accused Uber of promoting a hostile work environment and allowing discrimination based on race, gender, and nationality. Among the allegations made by the plaintiffs, it was revealed that engineers who were male and Caucasian were paid more than their female / minority colleagues for the same work. There was also a preference for white male engineers when it came to promotions and high ratings on performance evaluations.

As a result, the software engineers sued Uber for racial discrimination, unequal pay, and sexual harassment. The lawsuit was settled out of court in 2018 for $10,000,000. An Uber spokesperson also said that the company has changed its performance review process, initiated a new compensation policy, and started a diversity report to make all employees feel welcome. The company also has skills development and a mentorship program for minorities and women.  

Not everyone joined the class action lawsuit, however. Some plaintiffs, like Ingrid Avendaño, filed their own claim for damages. Avendaño worked for over 3 years as a software engineer for Uber. During her employment, she repeatedly complained about sexual harassment from another employee, who was eventually terminated. Instead of helping to resolve the problem, she claims that the company retaliated against her and paid her less than her white and male coworkers.

Because of Uber failing to properly address her problems, she suffered physical and emotional distress, and eventually resigned after she was hospitalized. In the lawsuit, she asked to be compensated for lost wages and work benefits, along with pain and suffering and reinstatement of her former position.

Thomas Liu accused Uber of violating the U.S. Civil Rights Act in reference to the rating system for its drivers. Liu, a former driver, alleged that the company is aware that many customers use the system to intentionally give minorities low ratings, thereby demonstrating a clear racial bias. This is a serious problem for drivers of color, since your driver account is deactivated once your rating score drops below a certain number.

According to Liu, he experienced racist treatment during his time with Uber in San Diego. He alleged that people would cancel rides when they say his photo, and some passengers would rudely ask “Where are you from?” He claims that Uber was well aware of these problems and how they put minority drivers at risk of termination through no fault of their own.

The complexity with this lawsuit lies with the fact that Uber drivers are not employees. As they are independent contractors, Uber argued that they are not entitled to the protections offered under the Civil Rights Act. In 2024, a judicial panel ruled in favor or Uber, but Liu has appealed the decision, so it remains to be seen whether anti-discrimination laws at the federal level can be applied to Uber drivers and other independent contractors.

It’s not just drivers in the U.S. who have made accusations against the rideshare app for racial discrimination. For example, drivers in the U.K. have argued that the app’s facial recognition software to check in for work regularly malfunctions for people of color. Essentially, drivers are required to take a selfie, which is compared to their Uber profile pic. If the selfie is not recognized by the automated system, the driver account is deactivated, meaning that the driver is banned from accepting rides.

It’s important to note that Microsoft – the company that made the facial recognition software – admitted that the system had problems recognizing people of color. Thus, they recommended using some form of human review in conjunction with the software to prevent misidentification. 

The glitches with the facial recognition mandate have a significant impact in the UK, where 9 in 10 private / rideshare drivers are Asian, black, or of mixed race. Uber claims that the selfies are reviewed by humans before a driver is deactivated on the platform, and they can always file an appeal if they were unfairly removed. Of course, this doesn’t make up for the lost income while a driver waits for the issues to be resolved. Uber’s deactivation can also lead to other problems, like drivers losing their Transport for London license. One driver claimed that he missed 4 months of work because of the error by Uber’s facial recognition system, but the company offered no compensation for his losses.

At one point, Uber faced intense scrutiny over incidents of drivers physically and sexually assaulting passengers during rides. Uber responded with a safety campaign that sought to improve background checks on their drivers.

Philadelphia man Kendall Reese had been working for the company since 2017. When Uber reran his background check, it showed that Reese had been in jail for two offenses during his teens. Uber deactivated his account as a result, but Reese fought the termination, saying that the convictions were from several decades ago. At the time, he was assigned a public defender who convinced him to plead guilty to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. In addition, Reese had passed the initial background checks and did not have any run-ins with the law since the initial offenses. In fact, he had gone to graduate from college with an undergraduate and master’s degree, volunteered with the Police Athletic League, and served as a Francisville Neighborhood Development Corporation board member.

Appealing to Uber got him nowhere, so Reese filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for employment discrimination. The agency provided him a Right to Sue letter so that Reese can file a civil lawsuit against Uber. His right to sue was based on Uber’s potential violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This is a federal statute that was passed in 1964 as a way to prevent unequal hiring and employment practices based on protected traits, like race, nationality, age, religion, and disability.

In 2012, Title VII was expanded to include the “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions.” With this additional guidance, employers can now be liable for a Title VII violation that if a work-related policy unfairly screens out employees or job applicants who belong to a Title VII protected group. Since Reese is African-American, he is basing his lawsuit on the fact that Uber’s new screening procedures are discriminatory, as it makes no sense to fire him for criminal convictions in the 1980s.

Bay area resident Lisa Irving was refused a ride by multiple Uber drivers because of her seeing-eye dog. In a private arbitration, Uber was ordered to pay Irving, even though Uber argued that they are not responsible for the conduct of their drivers, who are independent contractors.

Please note this is not the first lawsuit against Uber for discriminating against disabled passengers. In 2014, the company was sued by the National Federation of the Blind, which included numerous plaintiffs who were denied rides because of a service animal. The lawsuit, which was settled in 2016, included a provision that Uber would fire drivers that willfully refused passengers because of a service animal. Sadly, Uber did not uphold their end of the bargain, and since the settlement, there have been over 20,000 complaints about discrimination against customers with service animals.

Uber was sued by the United State Justice Department in November 2021 for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The violation had to do with Uber’s policy on charging wait time fees, which start just 2 minutes after the driver’s arrival. The fees continue to accrue until the vehicle departs for the customer’s destination.

This policy obviously puts disabled people at a disadvantage, as they generally need more time to enter a vehicle. For example, the customer may be using a walker or wheelchair, which needs to be collapsed or placed in the car in a certain way, and the process adds to how long a driver must wait before they can start the ride.

In its lawsuit, the Department of Justice advised that Uber must stop this practice, which constitutes discrimination against the disabled. The agency also recommended changes to its policy that comply with the ADA and training for drivers, along with payments to those who were forced to pay extra fees under this illegal policy. The DOJ is also seeking civil penalty payments from Uber as a matter of public interest to end discriminatory practices against those with a physical or mental disability.

Other Pages on Our Website Related to This Topic
The Ultimate Guide to Uber Accidents
Sudden Stop Rideshare Accident
Rideshare Injury Accident when Leaving Vehicle