Uber has been ordered to pay $10,000 in damages to an Australian driver after it permanently banned him from working due to a passenger complaint but failed to gather evidence that he had breached its code of conduct.
The ruling from the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal related to Uber’s conduct when terminating the driver’s account after a trip last August.
A female passenger alleged that the driver told her she was beautiful and asked about her marital status, according to the Ncat decision.
But the driver denied this, claiming she had only lodged the complaint after he had refused her demand to speed up during their trip to Sydney airport and was unhappy with the low rating he had subsequently given her.
The driver, who partially relied on a Punjabi interpreter during the tribunal proceedings, had been employed as an independent contractor, which Uber calls a “driver partner”. He drove for Uber full-time, earning about $212,000 including tips in the financial year before he was terminated.
He had a “gold diamond” average rating of 4.98 stars out of 5 as a driver from 19,956 trips over two and a half years. Four of those trips had led to a customer complaint.
In the initial complaint from 9 August 2023, the passenger checked a box that the driver’s behaviour had been “unprofessional or rude” but did not provide a written comment.
Responding to the passenger the same day, Uber said it had noted the feedback on the driver’s account and would give the passenger a 50% discount for the next two trips.
According to the tribunal, the passenger lodged a second complaint the same day, saying the driver’s “language was inappropriate/threatening”. She then added the comment: “driver was asking me if I have children and if I am single or married. He proceeded to tell me I look like a Bollywood actress which he has met and showed me a photo of them together. He continued to tell me I am very beautiful. I felt highly uncomfortable.”
In response, Uber responded that “we’re sorry to hear that the driver/delivery person may have sexually inappropriate behaviour”, adding it would fully refund the passenger.
The following day, Uber informed the driver it had received a “concerning report” that he may have commented on a rider’s appearance. It told him it was temporarily removing his Uber access while the company investigated and asked for any information he could provide about the negative feedback.
The driver denied the alleged behaviour, saying he respected his customers.
“I had one customer [made me rush] and told me [to] speed up and take some illegal turns,” he wrote in messages published by the tribunal. “I just told [her] that I can do my best to take your destination as quick as possible and safe … Customer was very rude. But I did not say anything.”
Three days later, Uber told the driver it had decided to “permanently deactivate your account as a result of this feedback”, the Ncat judgment said. It said he could request an appeal.
The driver responded by pleading with Uber to check his record.
“Please I beg you to verify it again proper so I can go back to work,” he wrote.
He lodged an appeal, saying he had lost his career and would take legal action if his account was not reactivated in 10 days.
Five days later, Uber said it had investigated further but would be upholding the ban.
The driver sought $10,000 in damages for lost net income covering the 30-day period after his termination. He represented himself at Ncat and did not ask to be reinstated as an Uber driver.
Uber relied on a defence that the driver had committed a “material breach” of its services agreement, a threshold that could be reached by either one serious incident or several smaller breaches.
It provided customer messages from three previous complaints lodged against the driver, including one passenger who alleged that he had called them “sexy” and another who alleged that he had asked if she was “free on weekends”.
The driver denied these allegations too, saying many drivers had experienced passengers concocting false complaints seeking refunds, especially during surge pricing windows and when passengers were intoxicated.
The tribunal accepted the allegations would be sufficient to terminate him but found in the driver’s favour, noting his denials and near perfect feedback over almost 20,000 trips.
The tribunal also cited Uber’s a lack of evidence from the complainants; failure to approach the complainants for further testimony; and a lack of evidence that Uber’s “specialised team” actually reviewed the driver’s appeal.
In a statement to Guardian Australia, an Uber spokesperson said: “Nothing is more important than the safety and comfort of all users on the Uber platform. We do not take decisions to remove drivers’ access to the platform lightly, but in this case we stand by our decision given the multiple complaints received of alleged inappropriate behaviour.”
