A New York Times investigation has raised questions about the legal tactics Uber uses when responding to sexual assault lawsuits. The company continues to face claims alleging that it failed to protect passengers from abuse by drivers.
Key Takeaways
- Uber is facing criticism over its response to sexual assault lawsuits involving drivers.
- Advocates say invasive deposition questions can cause additional distress and discourage people from pursuing claims.
- Court decisions may determine when Uber can be held responsible for driver misconduct.
- The litigation could influence rideshare safety policies and future sexual assault claims.
Ridesharing giant Uber has publicly expressed support for people who’ve experienced sexual assault while using its platform. However, a new investigation published by The New York Times found that company lawyers have used aggressive tactics that plaintiffs and advocates describe as distressing and victim-blaming. During depositions, attorneys have reportedly questioned women about what they were wearing, how much alcohol they consumed, and their previous sexual experiences. Uber defended its practices to the newspaper, saying in a statement that the legal system can be “particularly tough” for survivors.
The Contrast Between Uber’s Safety Commitments and Courtroom Approach
Uber has publicly committed to helping prevent sexual assault. The company has pledged millions of dollars to combat gender-based violence and partnered with organizations such as RAINN. It also offers a dedicated hotline that Uber says provides trauma-informed support.
The Times investigation, however, tells a different story. When passengers sue Uber for allegedly failing to prevent an assault, its attorneys may subject them to intensely personal questioning during depositions. According to the Times, Uber trains customer service agents to avoid victim-blaming language when receiving reports and to recognize that a person’s clothing or alcohol consumption doesn’t make them responsible for an assault. The deposition questions described in the investigation appear markedly different from that guidance.
In one deposition, lawyers questioned a woman about whether she had been wearing underwear on the day of the assault. In another, they asked a plaintiff to describe her outfit, including the bag she carried. The investigation also documented questions about prior sexual abuse, alcohol consumption, gynecological records, and therapy notes. Uber’s attorneys said these inquiries are intended to gather relevant information rather than intimidate plaintiffs. Still, experts say the techniques can compound the emotional harm caused by an assault.
“Sexual assault survivors often blame themselves for what they’ve experienced,” says Jessica Pride, Managing Partner of The Pride Law Firm, who handles rideshare sexual assault cases nationwide. “Aggressive legal tactics can be unnecessarily traumatizing and cause further pain.”
Uber has deposed plaintiffs’ loved ones, therapists, and former partners. The company has sought to introduce information about other assaults women reported and, during depositions, disclosed private details—including abortion history—to family members. Uber’s chief deputy general counsel told the Times that examining pre-existing trauma is a standard but reluctantly used part of evaluating claims for emotional damages. The company has also argued that drivers believed certain encounters were consensual. In one case, it continued to describe an assault as alleged even after the driver had been convicted in criminal court.
The Times investigation contrasts Uber’s public efforts to prevent sexual assault with its treatment of people who seek accountability through the courts. The company previously attempted to require sexual assault claims to be resolved through arbitration but changed that policy in 2018 after an open letter criticized the practice. The change allowed cases to proceed publicly rather than behind closed doors. Uber said at the time that it wanted to do what was best for those affected by sexual violence. Its current litigation practices are raising new questions about that commitment.
How Invasive Deposition Questions Can Affect Plaintiffs
Aggressive litigation can carry significant emotional consequences for people who bring sexual assault claims. One woman who sued Uber told the Times that she had to step away from nursing school after the trial, despite winning a jury verdict. People who have been assaulted may already question their own actions or wonder whether they could have prevented what happened. A line of questioning that appears to reinforce those doubts can trigger additional distress. In one deposition described by the Times, a woman expressed relief when her attorney ended the examination after she was asked whether she had ever exchanged sex for money.
Most sexual assaults are never reported to law enforcement. According to RAINN, reasons can include fear of retaliation, doubt that police will help, self-blame, and a desire to put the experience behind them. Delayed disclosure is also common. Discussing an assault can be difficult even in a supportive setting, and the prospect of having deeply personal information challenged or disclosed may make pursuing a lawsuit even more daunting.
Can Uber Be Held Liable for Sexual Assaults by Drivers?
A central question in these lawsuits is whether Uber can be held legally responsible for misconduct by drivers it classifies as independent contractors. The company argues that drivers are not employees and that it should not be liable for their actions. Plaintiffs contend that Uber exercises enough control over the rides and presents drivers as representatives of its platform, making the company responsible in some circumstances.
Juries have ruled in favor of plaintiffs twice this year. In one case, jurors found that the driver acted as Uber’s “apparent agent,” meaning the passenger could reasonably have believed he was acting on the company’s behalf. Uber has appealed at least one recent verdict and indicated that it plans to challenge others.
Uber says 99.9% of rides end without a reported safety incident. However, a previous Times investigation found that the company received a report of sexual assault or misconduct nearly every eight minutes over five years. Although rape shield laws restrict questions about a complainant’s sexual history in many criminal proceedings, those protections don’t always apply in civil lawsuits.
Uber has argued that when plaintiffs seek compensation for emotional pain and suffering, it must be allowed to investigate other events that may have contributed to that harm. The Times reported, however, that the company’s inquiries can extend beyond ordinary litigation practices. The prospect of having one’s sexual history, medical care, and private relationships scrutinized could discourage some people from filing claims, potentially limiting public accountability.
