Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 1 of 29
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`JOB GOLIGHTLY, on behalf of himself and all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
`CHECKR, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Job Golightly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges,
`
`upon personal knowledge and upon information and belief as to other matters, as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Uber, the largest rideshare company in the world, has operated in New York City,
`
`its largest domestic market, since 2011.
`
`2.
`
`This class action lawsuit challenges Uber’s unlawful use of criminal history to
`
`discriminate against its drivers in New York City as well as its brazen noncompliance with
`
`human rights and fair credit laws.
`
`3.
`
`Checkr, a consumer reporting agency used by Uber to obtain drivers’ criminal
`
`history through backgrounds checks, is Uber’s willing partner in this unlawful conduct.
`
`4.
`
`Uber’s criminal history discrimination has fueled and continues to fuel significant
`
`racial disparities in New York City and nationwide.
`
`5.
`
`Uber has dominant market share in New York City, with its labor platform
`
`hosting approximately 70% of the application-based on-demand rides that occur in the City.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 2 of 29
`
`6.
`
`Since its founding, Uber has classified its drivers as independent contractors,
`
`leaving its driver workforce vulnerable to discrimination and exploitation, and without the
`
`protection of city, state, and federal civil rights laws.
`
`7.
`
` To address this gap in protection, the New York City Council amended the New
`
`York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) in November 2019 to encompass independent
`
`contractors such as Uber drivers within its expansive protections against discrimination and
`
`unfair treatment.1 That amendment became effective and binding on companies, including Uber,
`
`on January 11, 2020.
`
`8.
`
`These NYCHRL protections include the Fair Chance Act, which, inter alia,
`
`requires employers to evaluate job seekers and current workers with criminal histories fairly and
`
`on a case-by-case basis.2
`
`9.
`
`The Fair Chance Act has been a critical tool for advancing racial justice and
`
`reducing barriers to opportunity. Employment discrimination based on criminal history has a
`
`particularly outsized impact in communities of color, which have long been over-criminalized
`
`and face disproportionally higher rates of criminal history and incarceration.3
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Job Golightly is a Black resident of the Bronx who has been licensed by
`
`the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) since 2014 as a For-Hire-Vehicle
`
`
`1
`See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(23) (“The protections of this chapter relating to
`employees apply to interns, freelancers and independent contractors.”) (effective date Jan. 11,
`2020).
`2
`See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(10)(a); Fair Chance Act: Legal Enforcement Guidance,
`available at: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/fair-chance-act.page (expansively defining
`“Applicant” to include both potential and current employees) (last visited April 8, 2021).
`3
`Devah Pager et al., Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment, 74
`Am. Soc. Rev. 777, 785-86 (2009); Devah Pager et al., Sequencing Disadvantage: Barriers to
`Employment Facing Young Black and White Men with Criminal Records, 623 ANNALS AM.
`ACAD. POL. & SOC. SCI 195, 199 (2009); Devah Pager, The Mark of a Criminal Record, 108
`AM. J. SOC. 937, 955-61 (2003).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 3 of 29
`
`(FHV) driver. Mr. Golightly has driven for Uber since 2014, working 50-60 hours a week, on
`
`average, and earning, on average, approximately $1,500 per week.
`
`11.
`
`In August 2020, Uber used Checkr to obtain Mr. Golightly’s background check,
`
`which revealed a 2013 speeding ticket in Virginia characterized as a misdemeanor. If Mr.
`
`Golightly had received the same speeding ticket in New York, it would not have been
`
`characterized as a misdemeanor.
`
`12.
`
`One day later, due to the results of this background check, and without any notice,
`
`process, or further communication, Uber deactivated Mr. Golightly from the Uber labor
`
`platform, depriving him of the ability to drive for Uber and earn income.
`
`13.
`
`Uber used the results of Mr. Golightly’s background check, specifically his
`
`criminal history, for employment purposes, by using it as a basis for deactivating him from the
`
`platform. Uber deactivated Mr. Golightly without engaging at all in the Fair Chance Act process,
`
`which incorporates Article 23-A of the New York State Corrections Law.
`
`14.
`
`The Fair Chance Act process requires individualized analysis under Article 23-A
`
`and its multi-part factors, the provision of required documents and disclosures, and a waiting
`
`period in which the employer must keep the position open for the applicant or current worker to
`
`respond to the employer’s concerns about any criminal history that appears on the background
`
`check.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Uber did none of these things.
`
`Only several months later, after Mr. Golightly complained to Uber and Checkr
`
`about his unfair treatment, did Checkr provide him with information about why Uber had barred
`
`him from the platform, specifically citing the 2013 Virginia misdemeanor.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 4 of 29
`
`17.
`
`Uber’s unlawful policy of using criminal history to summarily deactivate current
`
`drivers from its labor platform or reject new drivers without even attempting to comply with the
`
`Fair Chance Act process also disparately impacts hundreds of Black and Latinx individuals, like
`
`Mr. Golightly, who drove or hoped to drive for Uber, and who have disproportionately higher
`
`rates of criminal history due to the overcriminalization of communities of color. Uber’s conduct
`
`accordingly violates the disparate impact provision of the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-
`
`107(17).
`
`18.
`
`Uber’s policy of wholesale noncompliance with the Fair Chance Act process
`
`imports the significant racial disparities in the criminal justice system into its driver applicant
`
`and retention process, causing a disparate impact on Black and Latinx current and prospective
`
`drivers in New York City with criminal histories.
`
`19.
`
`Uber and Checkr also deliberately failed to comply with the requirements of the
`
`federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and its New York analogue, the New York State Fair
`
`Credit Reporting Act (NY FCRA), which impose an additional set of disclosure, notice, and
`
`certification requirements on companies that obtain and use consumer reports to take adverse
`
`action against applicants or current workers.
`
`20.
`
`Mr. Golightly did not receive from Uber any of the notices or disclosures required
`
`by these statutes.
`
`21.
`
`Current and potential Uber drivers with criminal histories are being deprived of
`
`crucial notice, information, and process that would permit them to explain their criminal
`
`histories, correct inaccurate or incomplete information, and otherwise challenge Uber’s policy of
`
`barring them from its labor platform due to that criminal history.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 5 of 29
`
`22.
`
`Uber and Checkr’s policies and practices have unlawfully imposed barriers to
`
`opportunity on Uber’s driver workforce that have a significant racial impact.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff accordingly brings claims on behalf of himself and all others similarly
`
`situated against Uber under the NYCHRL, FCRA, and NY FCRA, and against Checkr under the
`
`FCRA.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`24.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FCRA claims under both 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1681p, which permits FCRA claims to be brought in any “court of competent jurisdiction,” and
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYCHRL and NY
`
`FCRA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`25.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in
`
`this District.
`
`26.
`
`At the same time he files this Complaint, Plaintiff will send a copy of the
`
`Complaint to the New York City Commission of Human Rights and the Office of the Corporation
`
`Counsel of the City of New York, thereby satisfying the notice requirements of N.Y.C. Admin.
`
`Code § 8-502.
`
`Plaintiff Job Golightly
`
`PARTIES
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Job Golightly is a 44-year-old resident of Bronx County, New York.
`
`Mr. Golightly is a Black man.
`
`Mr. Golightly’s criminal history consists of a single 2013 misdemeanor speeding
`
`violation from Virginia.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 6 of 29
`
`30.
`
`In 2014, Mr. Golightly applied for a TLC license to be a FHV driver. As part of
`
`the TLC application, TLC conducted a background back on him. Mr. Golightly obtained a TLC
`
`license in 2014.
`
`31.
`
`Mr. Golightly drove for Uber from approximately 2014 through August 27, 2020.
`
`Defendants
`
`32.
`
`Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in
`
`San Francisco, California with offices located in New York City.
`
`33.
`
`Uber regularly conducts business in New York City and hires tens of thousands of
`
`independent contractors in New York City to drive for the company through its labor platform.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant Checkr, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in San
`
`Francisco, California.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Checkr regularly conducts business in New York City.
`
`Since 2017, Uber has sought consent from tens of thousands of drivers in New
`
`York City for background checks performed by Checkr and has used the results of those reports
`
`in connection with deciding whether to permit drivers to access or continue to access its labor
`
`platform.
`
`NYCHRL
`
`STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`
`37.
`
`The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination in New York City, in employment,
`
`housing, and public accommodations, and protects against discriminatory lending practices,
`
`retaliation, discriminatory harassment, and bias-based profiling by law enforcement.
`
`38.
`
` The law emphasizes that “there is no greater danger to the health, morals, safety
`
`and welfare of the city and its inhabitants than the existence of groups prejudiced against one
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 7 of 29
`
`another and antagonistic to each other because of their actual or perceived differences, including
`
`those based on . . . conviction or arrest record.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101.
`
`39.
`
`Accordingly, “[t]he public policy of [New York City], as expressed and
`
`incorporating [the Correction Law], [is] to encourage the licensure and employment of persons
`
`previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 753.
`
`40.
`
`For these reasons, the NYCHRL forbids most employers in New York City from
`
`asking about the criminal history of current employees and of job applicants, including
`
`independent contractors, before making a job offer. This legal regime allows current employees
`
`and applicants to be judged on their qualifications alone.
`
`41.
`
`If, after a job offer or employment, an employer wants to revoke the offer—or
`
`terminate employment—based on the existence of a criminal record, the employer must explain
`
`why, using the Fair Chance Act Notice (or equivalent Article 23-A analysis), provide a copy of
`
`any background check conducted by the employer or third-party vendor, and give the applicant
`
`three business days to respond after receipt of these documents.4 Employers must also provide
`
`individuals with a copy of the consumer report on which the employer relied.
`
`42.
`
`An employer may deny employment only where there is (a) a “direct relationship”
`
`between the criminal history and the “specific license or employment sought or held by the
`
`individual,” or (b) “the issuance or continuation of the license or the granting or continuation of
`
`the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of
`
`specific individuals or the general public.” N.Y. Correc. Law § 752.
`
`
`4
`See Fair Chance Act Notice, available at:
`https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/FairChance_Form23-A_distributed.pdf (last
`visited April 8, 2021).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 8 of 29
`
`43.
`
`The employer must, in making this determination, engage in an individualized
`
`analysis and explicitly consider eight factors:
`
`a. That New York public policy encourages the licensure and employment of
`people with criminal records;
`
`b. The specific duties and responsibilities of the prospective job;
`
`c. The bearing, if any, of the person’s conviction history on her or his fitness or
`ability to perform one or more of the job’s duties or responsibilities;
`
`d. The time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the events that led to the
`applicant’s criminal conviction, not the time since arrest or conviction;
`
`e. The age of the applicant when the events that led to her or his conviction
`occurred, not the time since arrest or conviction;
`
`f. The seriousness of the applicant’s conviction history;
`
`g. Any information produced by the applicant, or produced on the applicant’s
`behalf, regarding her or his rehabilitation or good conduct; and
`
`h. The legitimate interest of the employer in protecting property and the safety
`and welfare of specific individuals or the general public. Id. § 753.
`
`
`FCRA
`
`44.
`
`The FCRA requires that “before taking any adverse action based in whole or in
`
`part on [a consumer report],” the employer intending to take the adverse action must provide “the
`
`consumer to whom the report relates” with a pre-adverse action notice informing the consumer
`
`that the employer intends to take adverse action based on the consumer report and enclosing “(i)
`
`a copy of the report, and (ii) a description in writing of the rights of the consumer under this
`
`subchapter.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i)-(ii).
`
`45.
`
`The FCRA defines adverse action as either “a denial of employment or any other
`
`decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee,”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 9 of 29
`
`or “an action taken or determination that is . . . adverse to the interests of the consumer.” 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1681a(k)(1)(B).
`
`46. When used in connection with a consumer report, “for employment purposes”
`
`means a report that is used “for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment,
`
`promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(h).
`
`47.
`
`According to the United States Federal Trade Commission, which has primary
`
`enforcement authority for FCRA, “for employment purposes is interpreted liberally to effectuate
`
`the broad remedial purpose of the FCRA.”5 Accordingly, “it may apply to situations where an
`
`entity uses individuals who are not technically employees to perform duties,” such as a trucking
`
`company that obtains consumer reports on individual drivers who own and operate their own
`
`equipment; a title insurance company that obtains consumer reports on individuals with whom it
`
`frequently enters into contracts to sell its insurance, examine title, and close real property
`
`transactions; or a nonprofit organization staffed in whole or in part by volunteers.”6
`
`48.
`
`The FCRA also requires any company actually taking adverse action against an
`
`applicant to provide them a written adverse action notice, which must inform the consumer that
`
`adverse action has been taken based on information found in a consumer report, and must also
`
`include the following: (i) contact information for the consumer reporting agency that provided
`
`the consumer report; (ii) a statement that the consumer reporting agency is not the party taking
`
`the adverse action and cannot supply a reason for the adverse action; (iii) notice of the
`
`
`5
`Federal Trade Commission, 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
`An FTC Staff Report With Summary of Interpretations, at 32 (2011), available at:
`https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/40-years-experience-fair-credit-
`reporting-act-ftc-staff-report-summary-interpretations/110720fcrareport.pdf (last visited April 8,
`2021).
`6
`Id.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 10 of 29
`
`applicant’s right to obtain a second report, free of charge, from that same consumer reporting
`
`agency within a time period not to exceed 60 days; and (iv) a disclosure of the applicant’s rights
`
`under the FCRA, including the right to dispute the information contained in the consumer report,
`
`relative to accuracy and completeness. 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(a).
`
`49.
`
`The FCRA also states that a consumer reporting agency may only furnish a
`
`consumer report if the person who obtains such report from the agency certifies to the agency
`
`that the person has complied with paragraphs (2) and (3) of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b) with respect to
`
`the consumer report, and that information from the consumer report will not be used in violation
`
`of any applicable Federal or State equal employment opportunity law or regulation. 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1681b(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii).
`
`NY FCRA
`
`50.
`
`Under New York’s version of FCRA, when a consumer reporting agency provides
`
`a consumer report that contains criminal conviction information to a corporation, that
`
`corporation must provide the subject of such report a printed or electronic copy of Article 23-A
`
`governing the licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more
`
`criminal offenses. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d).
`
`51.
`
`The NY FCRA also requires that all users of such information identify
`
`themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the
`
`information will be used for no other purpose. Id. § 380-k.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`52.
`
`Founded in 2009, Uber provides on-demand automobile transportation in over
`
`10,000 cities globally. It allows customers to request and pay for car services via a mobile phone
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 11 of 29
`
`application. Uber claims that it is “building a culture . . . that emphasizes doing the right thing,
`
`period, for riders, drivers, and employees.”
`
`53.
`
`On April 25, 2014, Uber announced a new “three-step” background check policy
`
`consistently applied across all Uber products that included county, federal, and multi-state
`
`background checks.
`
`54.
`
`From that date until 2017, in New York City, Uber relied solely on the
`
`background checks conducted by the TLC. In mid-2017, Uber began using Checkr to conduct an
`
`additional background check on current drivers and prospective drivers after receiving negative
`
`news coverage of a spate of assaults committed by drivers.7
`
`55.
`
`Founded in 2014, Checkr is a corporation that regularly engages in the practice of
`
`assembling or evaluating information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer
`
`reports to third parties such as Uber.
`
`56.
`
`Uber uses these consumer reports, including information about any criminal
`
`history contained within, for employment purposes, i.e., to determine the eligibility of current
`
`Uber drivers to continue driving for Uber and the eligibility of individuals to begin driving for
`
`Uber.
`
`Plaintiff Golightly
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Mr. Golightly is a Black resident of the Bronx.
`
`In September 2013, Mr. Golightly received a speeding ticket in Virginia after
`
`exceeding the applicable maximum speed limit by 22 miles per hour, which under Virginia law
`
`
`7
`Maya Sheppard, Getting Fired by an App: The Shifting Legal Landscape of Criminal-
`Records-Based Exclusions from “Transportation-Network Companies” in Washington, D.C.,
`GEO. J. ON POVERTY L. & POL’Y (2018).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 12 of 29
`
`was a misdemeanor. Under New York law, exceeding the applicable maximum speed limit by
`
`22 miles per hour is only a civil infraction, not a misdemeanor.
`
`59.
`
`Mr. Golightly’s entire criminal history consists of that Virginia speeding violation
`
`misdemeanor.
`
`60.
`
`Mr. Golightly sought a TLC FHV license in 2014 and his background was
`
`checked as part of that application. The TLC issued him a license in 2014.
`
`61.
`
`After he obtained his TLC license, Mr. Golightly applied to drive for Uber. In
`
`2014, Uber accepted his application.
`
`62.
`
`Mr. Golightly drove for Uber from 2014 through August 2020, driving, on
`
`average, 50-60 hours per week and earning, on average, $1,500 per week.
`
`63.
`
`On or around August 27, 2020, Uber sought Mr. Golightly’s consent to conduct a
`
`background check via Checkr. Uber provided two options for Mr. Golightly’s consent: “Accept”
`
`or “Decline.” Mr. Golightly accepted and provided consent. Had he not provided consent, Mr.
`
`Golightly would have been barred from access to Uber’s labor platform.
`
`64.
`
`After Mr. Golightly authorized the check, Checkr obtained his consumer report,
`
`including his criminal history, and provided it to Uber. One day later, on or around August 28,
`
`2020, without any notice, process, or communication, Uber deactivated Mr. Golightly from its
`
`labor platform, preventing him from finding Uber passengers to drive and earning an income.
`
`65.
`
`Mr. Golightly only learned several months later that this background check
`
`revealed the 2013 speeding violation misdemeanor in Virginia.
`
`66.
`
`Before Uber deactivated Mr. Golightly, it did not conduct an Article 23-A
`
`analysis or provide him with any of the documents required by the NYCHRL, including a written
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 13 of 29
`
`copy of the analysis or his background check. Uber also failed to provide Mr. Golightly with a
`
`pre-adverse action notice and accompanying documents, or an adverse action notice.
`
`67.
`
`Even after Uber deactivated Mr. Golightly from its labor platform, it did not
`
`provide him a copy of any of the required documents under the NYCHRL, FCRA, or NY FCRA,
`
`or engage in the Article 23-A individualized analysis required by the Fair Chance Act.
`
`68.
`
`Mr. Golightly has still not received a copy of any of the documents required by
`
`the Fair Chance Act provisions of the NYCHRL.
`
`69.
`
`Mr. Golightly has still not received a copy of his consumer report from either
`
`Uber or Checkr.
`
`70.
`
`Mr. Golightly has still not received a written description of his rights under FCRA
`
`or NY FCRA.
`
`71.
`
`Checkr distributed Mr. Golightly’s consumer report to Uber without obtaining
`
`any of the required certifications from Uber that it would comply with the disclosure provisions
`
`of the FCRA. This unlawful distribution invaded Mr. Golightly’s privacy and caused him harm.
`
`72.
`
`Mr. Golightly and the proposed Class Members he seeks to represent are
`
`“consumers” as defined by the FCRA and NY FCRA and are each a “person” within the
`
`meaning of the NYCHRL and are covered by the NYCHRL’s protections, including the Fair
`
`Chance Act.
`
`73.
`
`During the relevant period, Mr. Golightly resided at the same address, which was
`
`known to Uber and Checkr. Uber and Checkr also had Mr. Golightly’s email address and phone
`
`number, which did not change during the relevant period.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 14 of 29
`
`Disparate Impact Allegations
`
`74.
`
`The Fair Chance Act has been a critical tool to reduce the significant employment
`
`barriers to those with a criminal history, which disparately affects Black and Latinx individuals.
`
`75.
`
`According to a report from The Sentencing Project, “[i]n 2010, 8% of all adults in
`
`the United States had a felony conviction on their record,” but, among Black men, “the rate was
`
`one in three [or 33%].”8
`
`76.
`
`Nationwide, Black Americans make up only 12.6% of the general population but
`
`constitute 27% of all arrests.9 Nearly 60% of incarcerated prisoners nationwide are Black or
`
`Latinx while they together constitute less than 30% of the U.S. population.10
`
`77.
`
`In New York State, Black residents constitute approximately 16% of the
`
`population but 53% of the incarcerated population.11 Latinx residents constitute 18% of the state
`
`population, but 22% of the incarcerated population.12
`
`78.
`
`Accordingly, “when employers use criminal background checks to
`
`indiscriminately disqualify all applicants with criminal records, these employers severely curtail
`
`
`8
`Report of The Sentencing Project to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
`Contemporary Forms of Racist, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance:
`Regarding Racial Disparities in the United States Criminal Justice System, The Sentencing
`Project (2018), at 9, available at: https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-
`racial-disparities/ (last visited April 8, 2021).
`9
`E. Ann Carson, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, Prisoners in 2016, U.S. Department of Justice
`Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Updated August 7, 2018), available at:
`https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf (last visited April 8, 2021).
`10
`Leah Sakala, Breaking Down Mass Incarceration in the 2020 Census: State-by-State
`Incarceration Rates by Race/Ethnicity, PRISON POL’Y INITIATIVE (May 28, 2014).
`11
`See Prison Policy Initiative, Racial and ethnic disparities in prisons and jails in New
`York, compiled from 2010 census data, available at:
`https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/disparities2010/NY_racial_disparities_2010.html (last
`visited April 8, 2021).
`12
`Id.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 15 of 29
`
`employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated people.”13 And “[b]ecause [B]lack and
`
`Latino individuals are likelier to have criminal records than white and Asian people . . . [B]lack
`
`and Latino males are disproportionately affected by criminal background checks.”14
`
`79.
`
`In New York City, where city residents are 43% white, 24% Black, and 29%
`
`Latinx,15 people of color are disproportionately arrested. Since January 2014, Black city
`
`residents have constituted 48% of all arrests and Latinx city residents have constituted 34%,
`
`while white city residents have constituted 12% of arrests.16
`
`80.
`
`The gig economy workforce in New York City is also primarily low-income
`
`persons of color: 87% of individuals engaged as independent contractors in transportation
`
`(primarily for Uber and Lyft) are persons of color, 81% lack a college degree, and 90% are
`
`foreign-born.17
`
`81.
`
`Accordingly, a transportation company such as Uber using an independent
`
`contractor workforce that discriminates based on criminal history against New York City
`
`residents will cause a significant disparate race impact due to differences in New York State and
`
`City arrest and conviction rates between white resident and Black and Latinx residents.
`
`
`13
`U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Collateral Consequences: The Crossroads of
`Punishment, Redemption, and the Effects on Communities (June 2019) at 42, available at:
`https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/06-13-Collateral-Consequences.pdf (last visited April 8,
`2021).
`14
`Id.
`15
`2019 Census QuickFacts, available at:
`https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/newyorkcitynewyork (last visited April 8, 2021).
`16
`ABC News, Blacks account for nearly half of all NYC arrests 6 years after end of stop-
`and-frisk: NYPD data, June 30, 2020, available at: https://abcnews.go.com/US/blacks-account-
`half-nyc-arrests-years-end-stop/story?id=71412485 (last visited April 8, 2021).
`17
`The New School Center for New York City Affairs, The Magnitude of Low-Paid Gig and
`Independent Contract Work in New York State (February 2020), at 14, available at:
`https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53ee4f0be4b015b9c3690d84/t/5e424affd767af4f34c0d9a9/
`1581402883035/Feb112020_GigReport.pdf (last visited April 8, 2021).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 16 of 29
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action as a proposed class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following two classes (collectively, “Class Members”):
`
`Criminal History Discrimination and Notice Class: All individuals
`who, since January 11, 2020: (i) have had their consumer reports obtained
`by Checkr and used by Uber in connection with driving for Uber in New
`York City; (ii) were then denied the opportunity to drive for Uber based in
`whole or in part on criminal history contained in those consumer reports;
`and (iii) who did not receive a pre-adverse action notice, an adverse action
`notice, a copy of their consumer report, a written description of their rights
`under FCRA, a written copy of Article 23-A, or a copy of Uber’s Article
`23-A analysis of their criminal history.
`
`Disparate Impact Class: All Black and Latinx individuals, who, since
`January 11, 2020, have had their consumer reports used by Uber in
`connection with driving for Uber in New York City, and who were then
`denied the opportunity to drive for Uber based in whole or in part on
`criminal history contained in those consumer reports.
`
`The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
`
`83.
`
`There are approximately 80,000 TLC-licensed vehicles in New York City that can be hailed with
`
`rideshare applications, the majority of which are hailed using Uber. Uber’s policy is to conduct
`
`background checks on its current drivers at least every two years, using Checkr18 and potentially
`
`other companies, as well as checks on prospective drivers. The precise number of Class
`
`Members is uniquely within the Defendants’ possession and may be identified using objective
`
`factors, including a database of current and prospective drivers in New York City for whom Uber
`
`has engaged Checkr to obtain their consumer reports. Without the benefit of discovery, Plaintiff
`
`estimates that the Criminal History Discrimination and Notice Class numbers at least 1,000 and
`
`
`18
`CNN, Uber tightens driver background checks, April 12, 2018, available at:
`https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/12/technology/uber-safety-update/index.html (last visited April
`8, 2021).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03005-LJL Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 17 of 29
`
`the Disparate Impact Class numbers at least 300. Class Members may be notified of the
`
`pendency of this action by mailed and emailed notice.
`
`84.
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to Class Members, and these
`
`questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common legal and
`
`factual questions include whether:
`
`a. Uber has violated and continues to violate the NYCHRL by failing to conduct
`in the first instance the individualized Article 23-A analysis incorporated into
`the Fair Chance Act before barring Class Members from its labor platform
`based on criminal history contained within their background checks;
`
`b. Uber has violated and continues to violate the Fair Chance Act provisions of
`the NYCHRL by failing to provide Members of the Criminal History
`Discrimination and Notice Class with a written copy of their background check
`or Article 23-A analysis (or Fair Chance Act Notice);
`
`c. Uber has violated and continues to violate the Fair Chance Act provisions of
`the NYCHRL by failing to hold the positions of Members of the Criminal
`History Discrimination and Notice Class open for at least three business days
`from the date of Class Members’ receipt of the documents required by the Fair
`Chance Act;
`
`d. Uber’s policy of barring Members of the Disparate Impact Class from its labor
`platform based on their criminal history without even attempting to comply
`with the Fair Chance Act provisions of the NYCHRL had and has a disparate
`impact on Black and Latinx individuals in New York City.
`
`e. Uber has violated and continues to violate the FCRA by failing to require the
`provision of pre-adverse action and adverse action notices, including copies of
`consumer reports and written descriptions of FCRA rights as wel