Q&A
Burden of proof in driver deactivation cases
3:42:39
·
6 min
Council Member Krishnan questions why the burden of proof falls on the driver to reverse a deactivation decision, arguing for a process similar to the legal system's 'innocent until proven guilty' principle.
- Krishnan suggests Uber should justify its decision rather than having drivers prove their innocence
- Gold explains that deactivation is a business decision, not a criminal case
- Krishnan argues that due to high stakes for drivers, a similar principle of innocence presumption should apply
- Gold acknowledges the need for a similar principle but highlights challenges in certain cases
Shekar Krishnan
3:42:39
My next question is about wouldn't you agree that if Uber or Lyft don't, you're not speaking to Lyft, but if if I I for hire vehicle company makes a decision to deactivate a driver, why would the burden can you explain a bit about why the burden would then fall on the driver to reverse that decision?
3:43:06
In other words, if a a company like Uber has made a decision, wouldn't it make sense to have Uber explain its rationale and justify its decision rather than having a driver have to reverse that after the fact.
Josh Gold
3:43:20
So just to to comment on the first piece because I I was unable to get to into my testimony.
3:43:25
The one of the key changes that I did wanna, you know, discuss or or suggest or or work with you on is, while we agree with notice requirements and creating a process ahead of time, we would love to discuss you know, defining egregious and what types of advanced notice or when our advanced notice is not necessary or when our when do advanced notice notices possibly create jeopardized rider or driver's safety.
3:43:54
Both on the rider and the driver side.
3:43:56
So just wanna be clear that we we agree with the intent that notices and warnings and opportunities for improvement and education are needed, but wanna make sure that I'm specific that there are some cases where that just may not be warranted or may not be in the best interest of rider and driver safety.
3:44:18
And then on the other question around I guess, the burden of proof.
3:44:26
There is a separate TLC oath process for your license.
3:44:30
We are not taking away anybody's license to drive, and that is a very thorough process.
3:44:37
We're choosing which we believe with good reason, who to engage in in in in business with, and we are trying to create as many opportunities to to for drivers to point out or defend allegations that were made either by riders or or others.
3:45:00
We have added video and audio recording.
3:45:03
We've added a deactivation review center so that information can be provided.
3:45:08
But there are some instances.
3:45:10
Again, those permanent deactivations, it's less than 1% of the driver population.
3:45:15
It's in the hundreds, not in the thousands.
3:45:18
And, you know, when we make a mistake, It's not a statistic.
3:45:25
It's gonna be that person's livelihood, and it's really important that we do whatever we can not to make those mistakes.
3:45:30
But we're getting a bunch of information.
3:45:32
We're having investigations.
3:45:33
These are human led processes.
3:45:35
And then we are now providing opportunities for drivers to present as much information as they can to review any of those allegations.
3:45:42
The one I talked about with Chair powers, Brooks Powers is the opportunity for a driver to take a drug test when there's allegations of a drug test that we're happy to pay for.
3:45:54
But that is an example of one where there are multiple allegations.
3:46:00
There's you know, drivers came to me and we discussed this and marijuana became legal over the past few years in New York.
3:46:07
And so if someone came into the car, a rider came into the car, they may have smoked beforehand, they left the car, the next passenger comes in and smells that from the previous passenger.
3:46:17
Then reports that.
3:46:19
That is not a good deactivation.
3:46:22
And so we wanted to create an opportunity for a driver to have a test if that if there's 3 or 4 or 5.
3:46:29
But the burden is still on the driver to go have the test.
3:46:31
We're paying for that.
3:46:32
But that's an instance where, you know, there were things that were happening that weren't with the just cause of the shares wasn't there.
3:46:40
And that's an avenue we took to try to fix that.
Shekar Krishnan
3:46:43
I I guess my question more is, you know, obviously, you've heard testimony today.
3:46:48
And and and that's right.
3:46:50
You know, I know the statistics that Uber Sites, but, obviously, there's so many drivers here testifying to how they've been deactivated, can get back on the app, and and you've heard it.
3:46:58
So there seems to be a disconnect there.
3:47:00
But you know, it's if we have my question is, essentially, if we have one process, I you would agree obviously obviously that, you know, everyone is in our legal system innocent until proven guilty.
3:47:15
Right?
3:47:16
And Right?
3:47:17
We would agree with that every honor.
3:47:19
Yeah.
3:47:20
Right?
3:47:20
And so and
Josh Gold
3:47:21
I don't wanna say anything that would, you know there's another side of the hall of Right.
3:47:25
Right.
Shekar Krishnan
3:47:25
We're not touching that one, but I think beside besides that, I mean, that's that's coming up in that context too, but innocent until proven guilty.
3:47:31
Right?
3:47:31
Yeah.
3:47:31
You're familiar with that.
3:47:32
And you go through a whole process legally where if you're charged with something, right, the the process is to prove with the right burden of proof and evidence, make out by an individual is guilty of those charges.
3:47:47
We don't say to the individual, you're presumed guilty, show us as the court why you were actually innocent.
3:47:54
What happens, right, the basic principle of of of of procedural due process is the prosecutor's off this, the agency, the government, whatever it is, has to make out the case to say you're innocent until we can show beyond a reasonable doubt or whatever it may be that you're guilty.
3:48:10
Right?
3:48:11
Can you see how in this why wouldn't that same framework be applied here for a process that a course impacts a driver's livelihood, can deprive them of income and support for their family.
3:48:22
Why wouldn't we have the same standard here?
3:48:24
Well, we have a process, and we require the decision maker Uber in this case for right now, why would we not require them to make out their case as opposed to saying to the driver, prove to us, why you should not be deactivated?
Josh Gold
3:48:40
Well, I do think there's there's a couple differences.
3:48:43
One is, it's not a a criminal case.
3:48:47
There's we're contracting with an individual, and we're making a business decision to contract with that individual.
Shekar Krishnan
3:48:54
But the stakes are high sorry, interruptions.
3:48:56
It's not a good guess, of course, but the stakes are high though.
3:48:58
Right?
3:48:58
So it's like in this case where the stakes are high for the individual that's affected by the outcome, why wouldn't the process be?
3:49:05
We give you notice.
3:49:06
We have to make out our case before the ultimate decision that if that has very high stake is affected.
3:49:11
Because another context where the stakes are so high, that's what we do.
3:49:15
Why wouldn't the same principle apply here?