Author: bedelman

Posted on

Uber Board Member Arianna Huffington said sexual harassment not a “systemic problem”; Eric Holder report disagreed

In March 2017 remarks, in response to a widely-circulated blog by former Uber employe Susan Fowler about sexual harassment and the company’s refusal to respond to complaints of sexual harassment, Uber Board Member Arianna Huffington denied that sexual harassment at Uber was a “systemic problem”:

Yes, there were some bad apples, unquestionably. But this is not a systemic problem

In sharp contrast, when former Attorney General Eric Holder and colleagues examined misconduct at Uber, their report found 215 complaints of inappropriate workplace conduct, yielding at least 20 firings, 31 retrainings, and 7 final warnings.

Posted on

Felons found driving for Uber and Lyft

Who’s Driving You? reports 19 incidents of felons driving for Uber and Lyft.

Representative examples:

Posted on

Criticized by San Francisco City Attorney

After the City of San Francisco requested records about driver safety, disability access, and other operations, via a subpoena, Uber objected and refused to cooperate. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera summarized Uber’s approach: “Unfortunately, Uber is doing what it always seems to do: raise obstacles and drag its feet— all while continuing to flout the law.”

Posted on

Judge said Uber abused attorney-client privilege

San Francisco district Judge William Alsup criticized Uber’s practice of including lawyers in discussions strategically — using the lawyer’s presence to claim that discussions were privileged if Uber wants to keep the content confidential, but claiming that the attorney did not attend in the capacity of an attorney if that advances Uber’s interests. Alsup explains:

Uber has indulged in the slick practice of including its lawyers in meetings and communications and deciding after the fact if a lawyer was actually included for the purpose of providing legal advice, all in accordance with what happens to be convenient for Uber’s case. Where, as here, the contents of a meeting prove advantageous for Uber to reveal, it readily claims that the lawyer did not attend the meeting in their capacity as a lawyer. But where the contents of a meeting would hurt Uber’s litigation position, Uber is quick to conceal the facts under claims of privilege.

Alsup concluded that he will not “indulge this pattern of convenience.”

Full order from Judge William Alsup and full order from Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Waymo v. Uber litigation docket.

Proudly powered by WordPress