Uber Ordered to Pay $8.5M in Sexual Assault Bellwether Trial

The verdict in the first bellwether trial tied to sexual assault claims against Uber could reverberate across thousands of similar lawsuits and raises broader questions about whether gig-economy platforms can avoid liability by classifying workers as contractors.

In the first bellwether trial of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving passenger sexual assault claims against Uber, the jury awarded plaintiff Jaylynn Dean $8.5 million after rejecting the company’s argument that it cannot be held responsible for criminal acts committed by drivers it classifies as independent contractors.

Uber Trial

Dean filed her lawsuit in 2023, claiming that her Uber driver raped her during a ride in November 2023 while taking her to a hotel from her boyfriend’s apartment in Tempe, Arizona. According to court filings, Dean said she was intoxicated and sitting in the back seat of the vehicle when the assault occurred.

“I want to make sure it doesn’t happen to other women,” Dean testified during the trial. “I’m doing this for other women who thought the same thing I did, that they were making the safe and smart choice — but that, you know, there are risks of being assaulted.”

The driver was not named in the lawsuit and did not face criminal charges, according to reporting by The New York Times. Uber has maintained that the sexual encounter was consensual and terminated the driver for violating its policy prohibiting sexual contact with passengers.

Dean’s attorneys argued that Uber’s business model and safety policies contributed to the assault by failing to implement stronger driver vetting procedures and safety protections.

According to Courthouse News, Uber did not request resumes, references or proof of prior employment when hiring the driver. In a prior deposition cited in the litigation, an Uber executive acknowledged the company ignored previous passenger complaints about the driver.

Dean’s attorneys also argued that Uber could have prevented the assault by requiring in-car cameras and implementing more comprehensive background checks.

Safety Algorithm Evidence

One of the most striking pieces of evidence introduced at trial involved Uber’s internal safety monitoring system. Trial evidence showed that Uber’s internal safety assessment algorithm rated Dean’s ride 0.81 out of 1, indicating an elevated risk for sexual assault or another serious safety incident. Despite the elevated risk rating, the company did not notify Dean or assign a different driver.

Dean’s attorneys argued the evidence showed Uber knew passengers — particularly women riding alone at night — faced increased risks of sexual assault but did not publicly disclose those dangers.

Further, internal documents and executive testimony presented during the trial suggested the company had long been aware of sexual assault risks associated with rideshare trips.

Uber Plans to Appeal

“This verdict affirms that Uber acted responsibly and has invested meaningfully in rider safety,” company spokesman Matt Kallman said in a statement following the decision. “We will continue to put safety at the heart of everything we do.”

Kallman added that Uber plans to appeal the verdict, arguing that the trial court gave improper instructions to jurors.
Uber has consistently maintained that rideshare trips are overwhelmingly safe, saying that 99.9 percent of rides occur without any safety incident.

Evidence of Internal Safety Concerns

During the trial, Dean’s attorneys presented internal communications suggesting Uber executives were aware of sexual assault allegations involving drivers for years.

According to Courthouse News, internal Slack messages from Uber’s global safety communications director Andrew Hasbun included statements about suppressing negative media coverage related to assault claims. “In many cases, we can and should squash stories,” Hasbun wrote in a 2018 message. “Kill stories when possible and mitigate the impact on our reputation.”

Hasbun later testified during a deposition that he had “peddled lies” in defending the company from rape accusations. “I do believe the company does the right thing,” he said. “In the end, I think the company ends in the right spot.”

Plaintiffs also argued that Uber’s rapid driver onboarding process created safety risks.

Court documents state that Uber hired Hirease Inc. to conduct background checks capable of clearing drivers within approximately 36 hours. Unlike many taxi companies and livery services, Uber did not require fingerprinting or extensive background checks through private databases such as FBI records.

According to the lawsuit, the company also mailed cell phones to new drivers so they could begin accepting rides before background checks were fully completed.

Data on Sexual Assault Reports

Uber publicly acknowledged the scope of the problem in a 2019 safety report, which disclosed 5,981 sexual assaults reported during U.S. Uber trips in 2017 and 2018.

The company later agreed to pay $9 million in a settlement with the California Public Utilities Commission in 2021 after failing to provide detailed sexual assault data to regulators.

Contrasting Verdicts in Earlier Trials

The Dean verdict contrasts with the outcome of a separate rideshare sexual assault case tried in San Francisco in September.

At the end of a three-week civil trial in San Francisco Superior Court, jurors found that Uber had been negligent in implementing safety measures designed to protect passengers. However, the jury concluded the negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.

As a result, Uber was not held liable in that case, according to attorney Celine Cutter, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers.

Reuters reported that the earlier decision marked the first U.S. trial testing Uber’s liability for sexual assault claims involving drivers.

Future Litigation and Worker Misclassification

According to court documents, the Uber driver who perpetrated the assault was acting as an “agent, servant, and employee” of Uber at the time of the incident — a finding that cuts directly into the company’s long-standing position that its drivers are merely independent contractors.

The verdict therefore carries implications beyond the facts of a single assault case. If courts or juries increasingly accept agency-based liability theories, gig-economy companies may find it more difficult to avoid responsibility for misconduct committed by workers operating through their platforms.

For years, rideshare companies have argued that classifying drivers as independent contractors shields them from liability for misconduct committed during rides. But the jury’s decision suggests that a platform’s level of control over drivers — including background checks, trip assignments and safety monitoring — may still support findings that drivers function as agents of the company.

Legal analysts say that distinction could significantly expand liability risks not only for Uber but also for other technology platforms built around gig labor models. If plaintiffs successfully argue that platform workers operate as agents rather than independent contractors, companies structured to avoid the costs and protections associated with employee status may still face substantial exposure when customers are harmed.

In that sense, the Dean verdict may represent more than a single trial outcome. It signals that gig-economy platforms’ reliance on contractor classification will not necessarily insulate them from liability when juries conclude the company exercised enough control over the work being performed.

The verdict marks a pivotal development in the sprawling litigation, which includes thousands of claims nationwide alleging sexual assault by Uber drivers. Legal analysts say the outcome could influence how courts and juries evaluate liability for technology platforms that rely on gig-economy workers.