PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia-based Lyft driver who alleged the rideshare app 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, has settled her litigation with the company.
Ebonee Chong first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 18, 2020 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 stated.
“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 said.
“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 said 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 said.
“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 stated.
UPDATE
On May 18, Clerk of Court Kate Barkman confirmed in a filing that the litigation had been settled, though terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel, without costs,” Barkman said.
Prior to settlement and 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 was represented by Joseph L. Gentilcore and Mark D. Mailman of Francis & Mailman, in Philadelphia.
The defendant was represented by Clark Whitney and Brian R. Ellixson of Ogletree Deakins, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-02931
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com