`
`
`Michael W. Carney (CA State Bar No. 241564)
` MCarney@sssfirm.com
`Jaime M. Farrell (NY State Bar No. 5786660)
`Pro Hac Vice Admission Anticipated
` JFarrell@sssfirm.com
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`Telephone: (310) 341-2086
`Facsimile: (310) 773-5573
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`07/13/2022
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: JACKIE LAPREVOTTE
`Deputy Clerk
`
`CGC-22-600697
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
` Case No. ____________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`1.
`
`JOHN DOE SSS 19, an individual;
`JANE DOE SSS 20, an individual;
`JANE DOE SSS 21, an individual;
`JANE DOE SSS 22, an individual; and
`JOHN DOE SSS 23, an individual,
`
`
`GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation; RASIER, LLC, a
`Delaware Limited Liability Company; and
`DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION,
`AND SUPERVISION
`
`COMMON CARRIER NEGLIGENCE
`
`NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN
`
`VICARIOUS LIABILITY/LIABILITY
`FOR THE TORTS OF UBER’S DRIVERS
`
`VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR SEXUAL
`ASSAULT
`
`VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR SEXUAL
`BATTERY
`
`VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR FALSE
`IMPRISONMENT
`
`INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
`
`NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
`
`NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
`EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`
`BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY –
`DESIGN DEFECT
`
`STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY-
`FAILURE TO WARN
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`John Doe SSS 19, Jane Doe SSS 20, Jane Doe SSS 21, Jane Doe SSS 22, and John Doe SSS
`
`23 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys of record, for causes of action against
`
`Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), a corporation with its principal place of business in San
`
`Francisco, California, Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”), a corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`San Francisco, California, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, complain and allege
`
`the following:
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs were kidnapped, sexually assaulted, sexually battered, raped, falsely
`
`imprisoned, stalked, harassed, and/or otherwise attacked by an Uber driver with whom they had
`
`been paired with through the Uber Application (“App”). This action stems from these attacks as
`
`well as the toxic-male culture at Uber that caused these sexual attacks. A culture which started at
`
`the very top of Uber by placing profits and growth over safety above all else and, in the process,
`
`exploited, endangered, and injured women and girls, including Plaintiffs. This culture was put in
`
`place by Uber’s officers and directors, including Travis Kalanick, and it was put in place with
`
`conscious disregard to the rights and safety of Uber passengers.
`
`2.
`
`Uber is a transportation company headquartered in San Francisco, California which,
`
`beginning in 2009, pioneered an App-based transportation system that has been implemented around
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`
`
`18
`
`the world, including across the entire United States.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`3.
`
`As early as 2014, Uber became aware that Uber drivers were sexually assaulting and
`
`raping passengers. In the eight years since, sexual predators driving for Uber have continued to
`
`sexually assault, harass, kidnap, physically assault, and/or rape Uber’s passengers, including
`
`Plaintiffs. Complaints to Uber by passengers who had been attacked by Uber drivers, combined with
`
`subsequent criminal investigations by law enforcement, clearly establish that Uber has been fully
`
`aware of these continuing attacks by sexual predators driving for Uber. Uber’s response to these
`
`ongoing sexual assaults by Uber drivers has been slow and inadequate.
`
`4.
`
`While Uber has, in recent years, publicly acknowledged this sexual assault crisis,
`
`including the publication of Uber’s U.S. Safety Report, in December 2019, Uber has failed to
`
`implement basic safety measures necessary to prevent these serious sexual assaults, which continue
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`
`to occur to this day.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`5.
`
`As more fully set forth herein, Plaintiffs were each kidnapped, sexually assaulted,
`
`sexually battered, raped, falsely imprisoned, stalked, harassed, and/or otherwise attacked by an Uber
`
`driver each Plaintiff was led to believe would give her a safe ride to her destination. Each Uber ride
`
`at issue was ordered by or for Plaintiff through the ride-sharing software application owned and
`
`controlled by Uber (the “Uber App”). At all relevant times, Defendants Uber and Rasier
`
`(collectively referred to as “Uber”) operated and controlled the Uber App. Each Uber driver, while
`
`in the course and scope of his employment for Uber and while otherwise working on behalf of Uber,
`
`kidnapped, sexually assaulted, sexually battered, raped, falsely imprisoned, stalked, harassed, and/or
`
`otherwise attacked the respective Plaintiff, as set forth below.
`
`6.
`
`Each Plaintiff named herein, individually, brings this civil action against Uber to
`
`recover damages for the injuries she suffered as a result of being kidnapped, sexually assaulted,
`
`sexually battered, raped, falsely imprisoned, stalked, harassed, and/or otherwise attacked by an Uber
`
`driver during an Uber ride.
`
`7.
`
`Uber is a common carrier under California law. Because of Defendants’ acts and
`
`omissions, Plaintiffs have each suffered damages that far exceed the jurisdictional floor of this
`
`Court.
`
`8.
`
`This is an unlimited action. The amount in controversy with respect to each Plaintiff
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`
`
`18
`
`exceeds $25,000.00. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 85.
`
`19
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff John Doe SSS 19 is over the age of 18 and is a California resident. The
`
`incident took place in the State of California.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Jane Doe SSS 20 is over the age of 18 and is a Maryland resident. The
`
`incident took place in the State of Maryland.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Jane Doe SSS 21 is over the age of 18 and is a Massachusetts resident. The
`
`incident took place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Jane Doe SSS 22 is over the age of 18 and is an Illinois resident. The incident
`
`took place in the State of Illinois.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff John Doe SSS 23 is over the age of 18 and is a Texas resident. The incident
`
`took place in the State of Texas.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs file this action under a pseudonym because, as a victim of sexual assault,
`
`they need anonymity to protect their privacy in this sensitive and highly personal matter. Plaintiffs
`
`proceed in this manner to protect their legitimate privacy rights. Disclosure of their full name would
`
`expose them to stigmatization, invade their privacy, and make them vulnerable to retaliation. For
`
`these reasons, Plaintiffs’ needs for anonymity outweigh both the prejudice to Defendants and the
`
`public’s interest in knowing their identities. Counsel for Plaintiffs will inform Defendants of
`
`Plaintiffs’ true name and the circumstances surrounding these causes of action. Plaintiffs further
`
`anticipate seeking concurrence from Defendants for entry into a protective order to prevent the
`
`unnecessary disclosure of Plaintiffs’ real names in the public record.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its corporate
`
`headquarters, principal office, and principal place of business at 1515 3rd Street, San Francisco, San
`
`Francisco County, California, 94158. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. has been served with
`
`process through its registered agent, CT Corporation System.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Rasier, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. Upon information
`
`and belief, Rasier is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc. Rasier maintains its
`
`corporate headquarters, principal office, and principal place of business at 1515 3rd St., San
`
`
`
`18
`
`Francisco, California, 94158. Defendant Rasier has been served with process through its registered
`
`19
`
`agent, CT Corporation System.
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Unless otherwise specified, this Complaint refers to Defendants Uber Technologies,
`
`Inc. and Rasier, LLC collectively as “Uber.”
`
`18.
`
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, plural, corporate, partnership,
`
`associate, or otherwise, of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore
`
`sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. The full extent of the facts linking such fictitiously
`
`sued Defendants is unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege,
`
`that each of the Defendants designated herein as a Doe was, and is, negligent, or in some other
`
`actionable manner, responsible for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby
`
`negligently, or in some other actionable manner, legally caused the hereinafter described injuries
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`
`and damages to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will hereafter seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`to show the Defendants' true names and capacities after the same have been ascertained.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times herein
`
`mentioned, each of the Defendants herein was the agent, servant, licensee, employee, assistant,
`
`consultant, or alter ego, of each of the remaining defendants, and was at all times herein mentioned
`
`acting within the course and scope of said relationship when Plaintiffs were injured as set forth
`
`herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each and every Defendant, when acting as a principal,
`
`was negligent in the selection, hiring, supervision or retention of each and every other Defendant as
`
`an agent, servant, employee, assistant, or consultant. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe,
`
`and thereon allege, that at all times herein mentioned, each business, public entity or corporate
`
`employer, through its officers, directors, supervisors and managing agents, and each individual
`
`defendant, had advance knowledge of the wrongful conduct, psychological profile, and behavior
`
`propensity of said agents, servants, licensees, employees, assistants, consultants, and alter egos, and
`
`allowed said wrongful conduct to occur and continue to occur, thereby ratifying said wrongful
`
`conduct, and, after becoming aware of their wrongful conduct, each public entity, and corporate
`
`defendant by and through its officers, directors, supervisors and managing agents, and each
`
`individual defendant, authorized and ratified the wrongful conduct herein alleged.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants are liable for the acts of each other through principles of respondeat
`
`
`
`18
`
`superior, agency, ostensible agency, partnership, alter-ego and other forms of vicarious liability.
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`21.
`
` In the instance of each sexual assault described below, the Uber driver who
`
`perpetrated each assault described herein (“Uber Driver(s)”) was an agent, servant, and employee
`
`of Uber.
`
`22.
`
`This Complaint refers to Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant Rasier,
`
`LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, as “Defendants.”
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`23.
`
`California Superior Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, pursuant
`
`to California Constitution Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original
`
`jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other trial courts.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`24.
`
`Each Plaintiff named herein, individually seeks relief that is within the jurisdictional
`
`limits of this Court.
`
`25.
`
`California Superior Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Uber and Rasier
`
`because both have their principal places of business in California and intentionally avail themselves
`
`of the benefits and protection of California law such that the exercise of jurisdiction by the California
`
`courts is consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`26.
`
`Venue is proper in the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, California,
`
`pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 395(a) and 395.5. Defendant Uber has its
`
`principal place of business at 1515 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA 94158 and at all times relevant
`
`has been doing business within the County of San Francisco.
`
`27.
`
`Uber’s corporate decision-making with respect to policies and procedures for
`
`training and supervising drivers regarding sexual assault, rape, or harassment are centered at its
`
`corporate headquarters in San Francisco. Uber’s corporate decision-making with respect to how it
`
`responds to complaints of sexual assault, rape, or harassment is centered at its corporate
`
`headquarters in San Francisco. Uber’s corporate decision-making with respect to how it chooses to
`
`stonewall and fail to cooperate with law enforcement investigating assaults, rapes, and harassment
`
`of their drivers is centered at Uber’s corporate headquarters in San Francisco. Further, decisions
`
`with respect to the vetting of Uber drivers and the supervision of Uber drivers (or lack thereof) are
`
`
`
`18
`
`made and implemented in its San Francisco headquarters. Corporate decision-making with respect
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`to Uber’s decision not to report assaults that they are aware of to law enforcement and other ride
`
`sharing companies that employ the assailants is centered at Uber’s corporate headquarters in San
`
`Francisco. Decisions with respect to the design of the Uber App and implementation of changes
`
`with the Uber App that effect passenger safety are made and implemented in its San Francisco
`
`headquarters. Corporate decision-making with respect to Uber’s policies and procedures to allow
`
`reported sexual predators to continue to drive for Uber is centered at Uber’s corporate headquarters
`
`in San Francisco. Decisions regarding Uber’s contract with Uber customers specifies that the
`
`agreement should be governed by California law. Finally, executive decision making on the part of
`
`Uber regarding its marketing campaigns and representations to passengers regarding its safety occur
`
`in San Francisco, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`28.
`
`All other jurisdictional prerequisites and conditions precedent to suit have been
`
`satisfied.
`
`29.
`
`This case is not removable. Some of the Plaintiffs named herein are domiciled in,
`
`and are citizens of, California. Both named Defendants, Uber and Rasier are citizens of California,
`
`as both have a principal place of business in San Francisco, California. As such, there is not complete
`
`diversity between the parties, so there is no federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332.
`
`Defendants, therefore, cannot avail themselves of snap removal – alleging they removed the case to
`
`federal court before a defendant was properly joined or served. Plaintiff is not relying on 28 U.S.C.
`
`section 1441(b)(2) to oust federal court jurisdiction. Federal-court jurisdiction never existed, and,
`
`by its terms, section 1441(b)(2) does not apply because there is no diversity jurisdiction under
`
`section 1332.
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
` Uber’s Sexual Assault Problem Started at the Top
`
`30.
`
`Uber is a transportation company. One of its founders, Travis Kalanick, became its
`
`second chief executive officer and, at one time, its largest shareholder. Uber drivers and Uber split
`
`the fare Uber charges riders for the riders’ trips.
`
`31.
`
`In 2014, Uber’s executives in San Francisco started charging Uber passengers an
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`
`
`18
`
`extra $1 fee for each trip. Uber called this a Safe Rides Fee. When Uber announced the Safe Rides
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Fee, it told the public that the “[f]ee supports our continued efforts to ensure the safest possible
`
`platform for Uber riders and drivers, including an industry-leading background check process,
`
`regular motor vehicle checks, driver safety education, development of safety features in the app, and
`
`insurance.”1 The Safe Rides Fee was not split with drivers.2 So it was pure revenue for Uber. Uber
`
`gave hundreds of millions of rides with the Safe Ride Fee attached to them and made hundreds of
`
`millions in revenue from the fee.3 But it never earmarked the money for improving safety or spent
`
`
`1 Uber, What is the Safe Rides Fee, https://web.archive.org/web/20148420053019/http://support.uber.com/hc/en-
`us/articles/201950566. (last visited March 10, 2021).
`2 Mike Isaac, SUPER PUMPED: THE BATTLE FOR UBER 136 (2019) (“The drivers, of course, got no share of the extra
`buck.”).
`
`3 See id.
`
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`
`it on safety.4 Instead, it pocketed the money it told the world it was going to directly towards
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`enhancing safety. As a former Uber employee said “[w]e boosted our margins saying our rides were
`
`safer.”5 It “was obscene.”6
`
`32.
`
`Rider safety was never Uber’s concern. Growth was. To increase growth, which
`
`required not only new riders, but new drivers, Travis Kalanick and the executives at Uber made it
`
`as easy as possible for Uber drivers to sign up. They used a background-check system designed to
`
`get drivers approved as quickly and conveniently as possible.7 Uber hired Hirease, Inc. to do its
`
`background checks.8 Hirease brags that it can vet drivers within 36 hours.9 To have such a short
`
`turnaround, Uber eschewed industry standards used by other taxi companies and livery services. For
`
`example, it abandoned fingerprinting — which takes weeks — and running applicant drivers against
`
`private databases, such as FBI records.10 These shortcuts might have led to growth for Uber, but
`
`they also put people, including Plaintiffs, in danger. Indeed, Uber was so fixated on growth that it
`
`began mailing cell phones to applicant drivers, so they could begin driving, before Uber’s cursory
`
`background check was even complete.11
`
`33.
`
`Travis Kalanick made the decision that Uber was not going to fingerprint its drivers
`
`and that it was not going to scrub applicant drivers against FBI records. Rather, the decision was
`
`made to use a fast and shallow background check process.
`
`34.
`
`Travis Kalanick also made the decision not to interview drivers or train drivers to
`
`
`
`18
`
`ensure Uber’s drivers understood their responsibilities and what was appropriate and inappropriate
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`when interacting with passengers. Mr. Kalanick decided not to implement policies to protect
`
`passengers from sexual assault—policies such a zero-tolerance policy with respect to fraternizing
`
`or making sexual advances towards passengers, and most certainly with respect to sleeping with or
`
`touching the passengers they pick up in a sexual manner.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Isaac, supra note 4, at 136.
`5 Id.
`6 Id.
`7 Isaac, supra note 4, at 115 (“Uber made it as easy as possible for drivers to sign up.”).
`8 Mike Isaac, Uber’s System for Screening Drivers Draws Scrutiny, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 9, 2014, at A1 (available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/technology/ubers-system-for-screening-drivers-comes-under-
`scrutiny.html?searchResultPosition=1.)
`9 Id.
`10 Id.
`
`11 Isaac, supra note 4, at 218.
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`35. Mr. Kalanick had actual knowledge that these decisions would put passengers in
`
`greater danger. As such, he acted with conscious disregard for the rights and safety of passengers,
`
`including Plaintiffs named herein.
`
`36.
`
`Travis Kalanick intentionally performed the act of hiring drivers without
`
`fingerprinting them, without running them through the FBI databases, and using fast and or shallow
`
`background checks. When he took these actions, he knew or should have known that it was highly
`
`probable that harm would result. When Uber’s current Chief Executive Officer, Dara
`
`Khosrowshahi, took over as Uber’s top executive in August 2017, he continued the policy of hiring
`
`drivers without biometric fingerprinting to be run through the FBI database. This was a very
`
`intentional and thought-out decision, evidenced by Uber’s active lobbying and resistance against
`
`municipalities or regulatory bodies implementing any kind of biometric fingerprinting requirement
`
`for drivers.
`
`37.
`
`Uber’s greed and complete disregard for rider safety or the rule of law is
`
`breathtaking. Uber’s policy is that it will not report any criminal activity it learns of to law-
`
`enforcement authorities.12 That includes allegations of sexual assault.13 Thus, Uber’s policy is that
`
`if it learns from an Uber rider, such as Plaintiff, that she was sexually assaulted, Uber will not report
`
`this sexual assault to law enforcement.14 Uber is proud of this policy and feels “very strongly” that
`
`it is not Uber’s job to go to the to the police on behalf of customers when an Uber driver rapes an
`
`
`
`18
`
`Uber passenger.15
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`38.
`
`This policy has been supported by Uber’s current Chief Executive Officer, Dara
`
`Khosrowshahi. When he took the action of intentionally embracing this policy, he knew or should
`
`have known that it was highly probable that harm would result. After all, drivers will feel less
`
`constrained to commit sexual assault if they know it is less likely that law enforcement will be
`
`informed.
`
`39.
`
`Uber’s greed, parochial focus on growth, and misogyny has had tragic consequences.
`
`
`12 Greg Bensinger, Uber Says Safety is its First Priority. Employees Aren’t so Sure, WASH. POST (Oct. 1, 2019)
`(available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/uber-says-safety-is-its-first-priority-employees-
`arent-so-sure/.)
`13 Id.
`14 Id.
`
`15 Bensinger, supra, note 14.
`
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`
`In December 2014, a 26-year-old finance worker hailed an Uber to take her home from a work
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`dinner near New Delhi, India.16 When she fell asleep in the car, her Uber driver moved to the
`
`backseat and raped her.17 The driver had previously been detained for rape.18 The rape caused an
`
`international imbroglio and New Delhi temporarily banned Uber.19 Uber dealt with the situation by
`
`attacking the victim.
`
`40.
`
`Eric Alexander was president of Uber in the Asia–Pacific region; he was Uber’s
`
`“number three” and Kalanick’s fixer.20 He secured, possibly illegally, the New Delhi rape victim’s
`
`medical records through a law firm.21 The records contained the medical examination that doctors
`
`performed within hours of her rape.22 Alexander shared these records with Mr. Kalanick and Uber’s
`
`number two at the time, Emil Michael.23 Many other Uber executives here in San Francisco either
`
`saw the records or learned of them.24 Mr. Kalanick latched on to the fact that the victim’s hymen
`
`was still intact.25 (This despite two people pointing out to him that the victim could have been anally
`
`raped.26) He began cultivating and sharing a bizarre conspiracy that the woman was not raped; the
`
`whole incident was a plot against Uber by Olga, Uber’s major ride-sharing competitor in India.27
`
`No matter that the Uber driver had a history of sexual assault and had confessed the assault to
`
`police.28
`
`41. Mr. Kalanick and Uber’s leadership and board were the fountainhead of Uber’s
`
`culture of reckless growth, misogyny, and lawlessness.29 When Uber customers accused Uber
`
`
`
`18
`
`drivers of sexual assault, something that happened with increasing frequency as Uber grew — given
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`16 Ellen Barry and Suhasini Raj, Uber Banned in India’s Capital After Rape Accusation, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 8, 2014, at
`A4 (available at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/world/asia/new-delhi-bans-uber-after-driver-is-accused-of-
`rape.html?_r=0&module=inline.); Isaac, supra note 2, at 149.
`17 Isaac, supra note 4, at 149.
`18 Barry and Raj, supra note 2, at 149.
`19See id.
`20 Isaac, supra note 4, at 260.
`21 Kara Swisher and Johana Bhuiyan, A Top Uber Executive, Who Obtained the Medical Records of a Customer Who
`was a Rape Victim, Has Been Fired, VOX (June 7, 2017), https://www.vox.com/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-
`india-assault-rape-medical-records.
`22 Isaac, supra note 4, at 261.
`23 Swisher and Bhulyan, supra note 23.
`24 Id.
`25 Isaac, supra note 4, at 261.
`26 Id. at 262.
`27 Id. At 261; Swisher and Bhulyan, supra note 23.
`28 Barry and Raj, supra note 18.
`29 Isaac, supra note 4, at 194 (“The tone of Uber’s culture was being set from the top . . . The result was a workforce
`
`that largely reflected Kalanick.
`
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`
`its lax supervision and shoddy background checks — Mr. Kalanick would pace around Uber
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`headquarters, not wondering about how to improve rider safety but repeating the bromide, legally
`
`correct but a bromide nonetheless, “innocent until proven guilty.”30 When law enforcement decided
`
`not to bring criminal charges against an Uber driver accused of sexual assault because it felt it did
`
`not have enough evidence for a criminal conviction, “a round of cheers would ring out across the
`
`fifth floor of Uber HQ.”31
`
`42.
`
`At a cocktail and dinner party with journalists in New York City, Mr. Michael
`
`attacked journalists who criticized Uber.32 He was particularly angry with Sarah Lacy who had, in
`
`a recent story, accused Uber of “sexism and misogyny” and had said she was going to delete her
`
`Uber app because she feared for her safety because of Uber’s drivers.33 Mr. Michael said that if any
`
`woman deleted her Uber app because of Ms. Lacy’s story and was sexually assaulted, Ms. Lacy
`
`“should be held personally responsible.”34
`
`43.
`
`The actions of Uber’s executives and board members demonstrate Uber’s contempt
`
`for women and myopic focus on profits. Uber only cares about growth. This culture permeates the
`
`entire company and endangers Uber’s riders. Sarah Fowler wrote an explosive blog post, describing
`
`how pervasive this culture was at Uber.35 Ms. Fowler was hired by Uber as a site-reliability engineer
`
`in 2016.36 On her first day on the job, post-training, her manager sent her a message over the Uber
`
`chat system.37 He said that he “was in an open relationship . . . and his girlfriend was having an
`
`
`
`18
`
`easy time finding new partners but he wasn’t. He was trying to stay out of trouble at work, he said,
`
`19
`
`but he couldn’t help getting in trouble, because he was looking for women to have sex with.”38 Ms.
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`Fowler felt it “was clear that he was trying to get [her] to have sex with him, and it was so clearly
`
`out of line that [she] immediately took screenshots of [the] chat messages and reported him to”
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`30 Isaac, supra note 4, at 167.
`31 Id.
`32 Ben Smith, Uber Executive Suggest Digging Up Dirt On Journalists, BUZZ FEED (Nov. 17, 2014)
`https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-digging-up-dirt-on-journalists.
`33 Id.
`34 Id; Isaac, supra note 4, at 129.
`35 Susan Fowler, Reflecting on One Very, Very Strange Year at Uber, SUSAN J. FOWLER, (Feb. 19, 2017),
`https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber.
`36 Id.
`37 Id.
`
`38 Id.
`
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`
`Human Resources.39 Uber Human Resources and “upper management” told her that “even though
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`this was clearly sexual harassment and he was propositioning [her], it was this man’s first offense,
`
`and that they wouldn’t feel comfortable giving him anything other than a warning and a stern
`
`talking-to.”40 Upper management told her that her manager “was a high performer,” so “they
`
`wouldn’t feel comfortable punishing him for what was probably just an innocent mistake on his
`
`part.”41 Upper management told Ms. Fowler that she had two choices, join a new Uber team, or
`
`stay on her team, under the manager who propositioned her, but she “would have to understand that
`
`[the manager] would most likely give [her] a poor performance review when review time came
`
`around, and there was nothing [Human Resources] could do about that.”42 She was told that by
`
`Human Resources that if she chose to stick with the team she was on, that a poor review by her then
`
`manger wouldn’t be retaliation because she had “been given an option.”43 Because working under
`
`a harassing manager was untenable to Ms. Fowler, she chose to switch teams.44 She eventually
`
`learned, by talking to other women employees at Uber, that many of them had similar sexual-
`
`harassment stories and that the manager who sexually harassed her had sexually harassed others
`
`before he sexually harassed her.45 That is, she learned that Human Resources and upper
`
`management had been mendacious with her. “Within a few months, [the harasser] was reported once
`
`again for inappropriate behavior, and those who reported him were told it was still his ‘first offense.’
`
`The situation was escalated as far up the chain as it could be escalated, and still nothing was done”
`
`
`
`18
`
`by Uber.46
`
`Tel.: (310) 341-2086 | Fax: (310) 773-5573
`
`Beverly Hills, CA 90211
`
`8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 255
`
`
`
`SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`44. With the bad press Uber was getting because of the sexual assaults, Mr. Michael’s
`
`comments, and the Sarah Fowler affair, Uber realized it needed to appear that it was making changes
`
`and trying to eradicate its toxic-male culture, so it held a company-wide meeting to announce
`
`changes. At the meeting, when Uber announced that it was going to increase its diversity and
`
`sensitivity by adding a female board member, David Bonderman, another Uber board member,
`
`
`
`39 Id.
`40 Id.
`41 Id.
`42 Id.
`43 Id.
`44 Fowler, supra note 52.
`45 Id.
`
`46 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`
`chimed in, announcing to the