In a suit brought by two women who allege they were sexually assaulted by Uber Technologies Inc. drivers, the San Francisco-based company's lawyers are raising a familiar defense. In court papers filed late Thursday, Uber claims that it shouldn't be held liable for the drivers' actions because "they were not employees of Uber," echoing previous defenses the company has put forward in other suits.
The familiar refrain comes as part of Uber's early attempt to get U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California to toss a suit filed in October on behalf of two Jane Doe plaintiffs. Plaintiffs lawyers at Wigdor LLP and Anderson & Poole maintain that the company should be held liable for the conduct of Uber drivers in Boston and Charleston, South Carolina.
In a motion to dismiss, Uber's lawyers at Clarence Dyer & Cohen acknowledged that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California has ruled previously in a separate employment suit that a jury should resolve the question of whether Uber drivers are employees or contractors under California law. But, the company's lawyers wrote, nothing in the earlier case precludes Illston from finding that plaintiffs in the sexual assault matter failed to show an employer-employee relationship.
'Outside the scope' of duty
Clarence Dyer's Joshua Cohen and RoseMarie Maliekel argued that even if Illston were to find that Uber drivers are employees the company shouldn't be held liable since "sudden and unexpected sexual assaults by employees are outside the scope of an employee's duties and cannot support employer liability." Uber's lawyer cite a string of California cases where judges have declined to hold employers liable for sexual assaults involving a wide variety professionals: a deputy sheriff, a teacher, a timeshare salesman, a security guard, a priest, and a school custodian.
"While no one should have to endure what the Doe plaintiffs allege, Uber is not legally responsible for any injuries they suffered," Cohen and Maliekel wrote.
Uber's lawyers further pointed out that the South Carolina driver was not logged into the Uber app when the alleged assault took place. "If Uber and companies like it could be held liable for acts committed by every driver who has registered to drive on the relevant platform, particularly without regard for whether the driver was using the platform at the time of the act, there would be virtually no limit on the companies' potential liability," Cohen and Maliekel wrote. In a move that's bound to bemuse the company's rivals in the taxi industry, the company cited another California case that found "a taxicab operator cannot be held liable for the bad acts of a driver who commits such acts after his shift has ended, even though he continues to drive the taxi."
Uber's motion is set to be argued in February. Both drivers named in the suit face criminal prosecutions in their home states.
Originally published in The Recorder. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.