## Facts

- Two women alleged they were sexually assaulted by drivers obtained through Uber’s smartphone application after requesting rides.
- Uber matched riders with drivers through the app, set and processed payments by credit card, paid drivers a share of the fare, and retained the remainder.
- Uber recruited non-professional drivers through an online application and used a third-party background check that searched databases tied to the applicant’s social security number for a seven-year period.
- Doe 1 alleged that after her friends were dropped off, the driver deviated from the route, stopped in a remote area, and sexually assaulted her; she alleged the driver’s limited time in the United States meant the background check would not capture prior foreign history.
- Doe 2 alleged she was sexually assaulted by a different driver and that the driver had a prior criminal conviction that should have been discovered and considered.
- Plaintiffs alleged Uber marketed safety, exercised substantial control over the ride transaction, and used inadequate screening designed to minimize costs.
- Plaintiffs asserted tort claims including negligence (negligent hiring/supervision/retention), misrepresentation based on safety statements, and assault-related theories; Uber moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged an employment relationship (rather than independent contracting) sufficient to pursue vicarious liability against Uber at the pleading stage.
2. Whether alleged sexual assaults by drivers could be within the scope of employment for respondeat superior purposes, such that dismissal was improper as a matter of law.
3. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged Uber functioned as a common carrier owing a heightened duty of care to riders.
4. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded direct-liability claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention based on Uber’s screening and retention practices, including driver-specific allegations.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part Uber’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held plaintiffs plausibly alleged facts supporting that drivers could be Uber employees, making vicarious liability under respondeat superior potentially available; the classification issue was fact-intensive and not resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- The court declined to hold, at the pleading stage, that sexual assaults were categorically outside the scope of employment, concluding the issue required factual development.
- The court allowed the common-carrier theory to proceed based on allegations that Uber offered standardized transportation services to the public and marketed safety to induce reliance.
- The court allowed negligent hiring/supervision/retention claims to proceed at least as to the driver alleged to have a prior conviction that should have been discovered, while narrowing or dismissing aspects of negligent hiring allegations where the complaint lacked driver-specific red flags (including certain allegations tied to the other driver).
- The court permitted misrepresentation-based theories to proceed where plaintiffs pleaded sufficient detail linking safety representations to allegedly inadequate screening and foreseeable risk.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, worker classification (employee vs. independent contractor) may be unsuitable for resolution when the complaint alleges facts indicating substantial company control over the manner and means of work.
- Respondeat superior scope-of-employment determinations are often fact-dependent; courts may decline to foreclose vicarious liability at the pleading stage absent a developed record.
- An entity offering transportation services to the public through a standardized platform may plausibly be alleged to have common-carrier duties at the pleading stage, depending on the nature of the service and representations to passengers.
- Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claims require plausible allegations that the defendant’s screening/retention practices were unreasonable and that risk was foreseeable; driver-specific allegations (such as a discoverable prior conviction) can strengthen plausibility.
- Safety advertising and related statements can support misrepresentation theories when plaintiffs plausibly allege reliance and a mismatch between the assurances and the company’s screening practices contributing to injury.

## Conclusion

The court permitted substantial portions of plaintiffs’ claims to proceed past the pleading stage, including theories that Uber could face vicarious liability, could owe heightened duties as a common carrier, and could be directly liable for allegedly inadequate screening and safety representations, while trimming allegations not supported by driver-specific facts.


Doe v. Uber Techs., Inc., 184 F. Supp. 3d 774 (N.D. Cal. 2016)