Uber defends nonprofit partnerships towards end of first Federal sexual assault trial

On the twelfth day of the first Uber federal sexual assault trial in Phoenix, Uber executive testified that the company stands behind its partnerships with women’s safety advocacy organizations, describing them as a core part of Uber’s efforts to address sexual assault on its platform, Courthouse News Service reported Wednesday.

Emily Berman, Uber’s Director of Global Public Safety, said the rideshare giant has invested heavily in these relationships through its Driving Change initiative, spending more than $5 million over five years and approximately $2.5 million in 2023 alone.

“As a company, we are going to shine a light on this issue,” Berman told jurors during testimony.

The lawsuit was brought by Jaylynn Dean, one of thousands of women who say they were sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. Her case is the first of more than 3,000 individual lawsuits within a federal multi district litigation (MDL) to reach trial. Dean alleges that Uber marketed its services to women traveling alone at night and women who were intoxicated, promising safety while failing to prevent sexual assaults against riders. The MDL is overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California, where Uber is headquartered in San Francisco. Dean, the plaintiff, is an Arizona resident, hence the first test case (also called a bellwether trial) scheduled in the Phoenix area.

Uber began working with sexual violence prevention organizations in 2015. While plaintiff attorneys have characterized these partnerships as public relations efforts designed to benefit Uber’s image, the executive described them as substantive and meaningful collaborations.

“To suggest that they would compromise their integrity and what they stand for just because Uber is paying them an amount is just ridiculous,” Berman told the jury.

One of the organizations involved in Driving Change assisted Uber in developing tools to identify and categorize sexual assault incidents, shared prevention resources, and audited Uber’s safety data to validate reports. The organization later clarified that its partnerships do not constitute endorsements and that its opinions remain independent.

Uber also works with a national sexual assault support organization that staffs Uber’s support hotline with trained survivor advocates.

During cross examination, a plaintiff’s attorney pointed to evidence suggesting that reported rape rates involving Uber drivers remained largely unchanged between 2017 and 2024. Berman said she was not aware of that data.

Dean also argued that several safety features were rolled out too slowly, despite Uber’s awareness of ongoing reports of sexual assault. One example raised at trial was the delayed introduction of a woman driver preferred option, which was not launched until July as a pilot program and does not guarantee a woman driver.

“We actually don’t have a large number of women drivers on our platform today,” Berman said.

Berman testified that Uber hesitated to implement the feature earlier because of concerns over gender discrimination claims, which later materialized when male drivers filed a class action lawsuit.

Internal marketing documents shown to jurors listed Uber’s target audience as “more women, more often,” including women traveling alone at night, women seeking to avoid drunk driving, and women traveling to unfamiliar places.

“I do think that we are targeting women,” Berman said. “Transportation before rideshare wasn’t always great for women. I think rideshare helped solve the problem.”

Another internal document presented at trial outlined the pros and cons of publicly disclosing that sexual assault rates increase during nighttime rides. One concern noted was that public awareness could reduce ridership during peak hours.

Berman said the data would not be unique to Uber.

“Sexual assault is just more likely to occur at night,” she said. “This is not specific to Uber.”

Earlier testimony from Uber’s legal expert asserted that the company has exceeded industry standards for rider safety. When asked by a plaintiff’s attorney whether Uber could do more, the expert responded that Uber already does more than its peers.

Dean’s claims also include allegations that Uber fails to properly screen drivers. She argues that Uber does not require fingerprinting or drug tests and relies on what she describes as inadequate background checks.

In New York City, Uber drivers must meet additional requirements, including fingerprinting, drug testing, and enhanced background checks through the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission. Dean contends these measures are more effective than Uber’s practices elsewhere.

The expert witness testified that New York City is an outlier and that its regulatory model cannot be replicated nationwide, arguing that the city’s requirements would effectively eliminate part time drivers in other markets.

A brief procedural issue arose after a sticky note referencing fines was discovered in an elevator. Jurors were questioned and indicated they had not seen it. The judge instructed them not to consider information outside the courtroom. The note appeared to reference a prior regulatory settlement, though it was unclear whether it would be introduced as evidence.

Uber is expected to rest its case by the end of this week, with closing arguments scheduled to follow.