Skip to content 
Alex Ebert of Bloomberg Law reported earlier today that Uber is facing accusations of withholding key safety data in a Florida lawsuit filed by a woman who was raped by one of its drivers, potentially exposing the company to punitive damages.
The case stems from a 2021 assault in Tampa, where a 20-year-old woman identified as Jane Doe was attacked by her Uber driver, an eight-time convicted felon. Her attorneys claim that Uber deliberately withheld discovery documents about its internal handling of sexual assault data and safety policies, only for that information to later surface in unrelated litigation.
According to filings in Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Jane Doe’s attorneys allege that Uber failed to produce data it previously denied existed—information later reported by The New York Times to have been shared in California’s multi-district Uber sexual assault litigation. “This already was a case about egregious and systemic corporate negligence that led to the brutal rape of a 20-year-old woman by an Uber driver,” the plaintiff’s lawyers wrote. “But unfortunately, it’s worse: this is also a case about Uber willfully obstructing the discovery process, hoping to run out the clock and prevent Jane Doe from learning of Uber’s intentional misconduct or gross negligence.”
Uber has denied wrongdoing. In a response filed by its then-counsel, the company argued that the plaintiff’s motion was “based on hearsay, generalized allegations, and business decisions with which Plaintiff disagrees—not on competent, substantial evidence of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.” Uber later replaced its counsel.
The incident occurred when Jane Doe was separated from friends while celebrating her upcoming 21st birthday. A bystander ordered her an Uber for safety, but instead of driving her to her hotel, driver Anthony Oliveras-Rivera took her miles off course and assaulted her in his vehicle before returning her to her hotel hours later. Oliveras-Rivera, who had prior convictions including felony robbery, later pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual battery and is serving a prison sentence until 2032.
The Florida case has expanded beyond the question of driver responsibility to allegations of discovery abuse by Uber. Jane Doe’s legal team says the company hid information about its sexual assault data, driver background policies, and predictive safety analytics that could have been relevant to the case. A plaintiff’s attorney argued that Uber’s systems were capable of identifying conditions under which assaults were more likely to occur but that “it concealed that information from passengers.”
In court, Uber’s counsel countered that the company cannot be held responsible for the unforeseeable actions of an independent contractor, stating that “they can’t be expected to know that a violent crime 20 years ago was indicative of a different violent crime 20 years later.” However, Circuit Court Judge Alissa Ellison rejected Uber’s attempt to dismiss the case, ruling that a jury should determine whether Uber was negligent in hiring Oliveras-Rivera.
Uber’s alleged failure to disclose records has already led to court sanctions. In June, Judge Ellison sanctioned the company for withholding information about driver agreements and background check protocols involving its third-party vendor, Checkr. In a later deposition, an Uber executive confirmed the existence of incident reports and driver sign-up agreements that had not been shared with the plaintiff’s legal team.
The plaintiff’s attorneys now argue that Uber’s conduct amounts to fraud upon the court, a serious allegation that could justify punitive damages, though such damages are rare under Florida law following recent tort reforms. Mediation is scheduled for October 10, with a hearing on October 30 to determine whether Jane Doe’s complaint can be amended to include punitive damages. Her legal team has requested a trial date before the end of 2025.
“After a years-long battle to uncover the truth, we are eager to present our case to a jury,” said one of Jane Doe’s attorneys. “The evidence speaks for itself.”
Uber has faced thousands of lawsuits nationwide alleging that the company failed to adequately screen or supervise drivers accused of sexual assault. The first case to reach trial—held in California—returned a defense verdict on Sept. 30, though the jury did find that Uber had been negligent in general safety practices. The plaintiff’s legal representation in that case announced that they plan on appealing the finding that Uber wasn’t responsible for the sexual assault.
If you are a survivor of sexual assault involving an Uber driver, you may still have legal options. Visit our Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit Guide to learn about your rights and potential next steps.
