PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia-based Lyft driver is suing the rideshare app company on multiple grounds, after she says it suspended her for a traffic citation that was later dismissed – and then refused to lift the suspension after the ticket’s removal from her record.
Ebonee Chong filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 18 versus Lyft, Inc. of San Francisco.
“Ms. Chong started working as a driver with Lyft, Inc. in May 2018. Driving for Lyft was Ms. Chong’s sole employment for nearly a year, and she relied on the income from Lyft to pay her bills and provide for her family. On or around March 8, 2019, Chong received a citation in Delaware County for rolling a stop sign,” the suit states.
“Ms. Chong denied that she rolled the stop sign, maintained her innocence, and contested the citation. On March 26, 2019, Lyft contracted with a third-party, Checkr, Inc. to obtain a routine background check on Ms. Chong. On April 4, 2019, the Magisterial District Court dismissed the citation entirely.”
That first background check from Checkr contained a record of the traffic citation before it had been dismissed, and was sent to Lyft. As a result, Chong was suspended from her driving duties with Lyft, the suit says.
“On April 4, 2019, when the Magisterial District Court dismissed the citation, it provided Chong with a copy of the court docket showing that the citation had been dismissed. On that same day, Chong disputed that accuracy of the First Report, disputed her impending suspension from Lyft, and provided a copy of the Magisterial District Court records to both Checkr and Lyft,” according to the lawsuit.
“Lyft responded by informing Ms. Chong that she needed to dispute the contents of the First Report with Checkr. Checkr responded by correcting the First Report and issuing another background report dated April 4, 2019 which correctly deleted any reference to the citation (Second Report). The Second Report was provided to and was accessible by Lyft.”
Chong says despite receiving the second report as proof the citation had been dismissed, Lyft continued its suspension, refused to re-evaluate it in light of the new evidence, refused to lift the suspension and falsely stated that issues remained with Chong’s background report, the suit says.
“By providing a copy of the Second Report, but making its decisions on the First Report, Lyft made it impossible for Ms. Chong to dispute or explain any inaccuracy in the background check. Lyft has maintained its suspension of Chong up through the date of this filing. In the alternative, if Lyft made its decision to terminate Chong based on the Second Report, Lyft violated Pennsylvania common law,” the suit says.
For counts of violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, promissory estoppel, negligence, tortious interference with economic gain, the plaintiff is seeking actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper, in addition to a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Joseph L. Gentilcore and of Francis & Mailman, in Philadelphia.
The defendant has not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-02931