Los Angeles Workplace Sexual Abuse Attorney

California’s AB 2777, codified at Code of Civil Procedure §340.16, created a revival window allowing survivors to file adult sexual assault claims that were previously barred by the statute of limitations, but only if the assault was connected to a company’s deliberate concealment or cover-up of misconduct. This window closes permanently on December 31, 2026, and both Uber and Lyft have faced documented allegations of underreporting driver assault complaints to the California Public Utilities Commission and law enforcement. Survivors who were assaulted years ago by a rideshare driver in San Francisco may still qualify if Uber or Lyft suppressed their complaint. An attorney at the San Francisco Superior Court can file a qualifying claim before this deadline expires.

Yes — despite rideshare companies classifying drivers as independent contractors under Proposition 22 (2020), California courts have recognized direct liability theories including negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision when a company fails to conduct adequate background checks or ignores prior misconduct complaints. In 2023, Uber settled a multi-district litigation involving approximately 550 assault cases for an undisclosed amount, demonstrating that direct corporate liability is viable. Under California Civil Code §2100, common carriers owe passengers the utmost care, and California courts have applied heightened duty-of-care standards to TNCs. Filing against Uber or Lyft in San Francisco Superior Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, preserves claims against the corporate entity separate from any criminal case against the driver.

Code of Civil Procedure §340.16, as amended by AB 2777, provides a three-year statute of limitations for adult sexual assault claims from the date of the assault or the date the survivor discovered — or reasonably should have discovered — the connection between their injury and the assault. The revival window added by AB 2777 extends this right to claims previously barred by time limits, specifically where the defendant entity engaged in a cover-up, defined broadly under the statute. Uber and Lyft’s alleged systematic underreporting of assault complaints to the CPUC strengthens the cover-up argument for San Francisco survivors. The December 31, 2026 hard deadline to file under the revival window makes immediate legal consultation essential.

Potentially liable parties include the rideshare driver individually, Uber Technologies Inc. or Lyft Inc. as corporate defendants, and in some cases third-party background check vendors whose negligent screening allowed dangerous drivers onto the platform. California’s negligent entrustment doctrine and the common carrier duty of care under Civil Code §2100 support holding Uber and Lyft accountable for foreseeable harms their drivers commit against passengers. San Francisco County juries have historically held corporations to high standards of passenger safety, particularly where internal warning signs were ignored. A successful claim may establish liability against multiple defendants simultaneously, maximizing available compensation.

California law permits recovery of economic damages including medical expenses, therapy costs, lost wages, and future earning capacity, as well as non-economic damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. In cases involving Uber or Lyft where corporate officers acted with oppression, fraud, or malice — such as knowingly retaining a driver with prior assault complaints — California Civil Code §3294 permits additional punitive damages. A San Francisco jury in 2022 awarded a rideshare assault survivor over $7 million, reflecting the severe harm these cases cause. Your attorney will document all economic losses and engage expert witnesses to quantify non-economic harm for presentation in San Francisco Superior Court.

Yes — AB 218 substantially amended Code of Civil Procedure §340.1 to eliminate the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims against entities with five or more employees that owned, possessed, or controlled a premises where the abuse occurred, or employed the abuser in a role that contributed to the abuse. For rideshare abuse occurring to minors, this means Uber or Lyft could face claims with no upper time limit if the abuse occurred on or after January 1, 2020. For older childhood claims, the statute permits survivors to file until age 40 or within five years of discovering the psychological injury, whichever is later. San Francisco Superior Court has jurisdiction over these claims, and an attorney can assess whether the corporate defendant qualifies under the entity-liability provisions of §340.1.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure §340.16, adult survivors of sexual assault generally have three years from the date of the assault, or three years from the date they discover or reasonably should have discovered that their psychological or physical injury was caused by the assault, whichever is later. The discovery rule is particularly important in rideshare cases where survivors may not immediately connect lasting trauma to a specific incident. For cases within the standard limitations period, filing in San Francisco Superior Court at 400 McAllister Street initiates the civil process independent of any criminal prosecution. Consulting an attorney quickly preserves evidence, including Uber’s or Lyft’s trip records, driver history, and complaint logs, which companies may otherwise overwrite.

California’s negligent hiring doctrine holds employers and entities responsible when they place an individual in a position that creates a foreseeable risk of harm and fail to exercise reasonable care in screening that individual. Uber and Lyft rely on automated background checks through vendors like Checkr that have been criticized for missing criminal records, particularly offenses from other states or countries. The CPUC’s General Order 157-E requires TNCs to conduct annual background checks, and failure to comply or to act on flagged results constitutes a statutory violation that supports civil liability. Internal documents produced in prior litigation have shown that both companies received assault complaints about drivers who remained active on the platform, establishing a pattern of negligent retention.

Yes — California law permits survivors to pursue criminal prosecution through the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and a civil lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court at the same time, as these are separate legal proceedings with different standards of proof. A civil claim requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), whereas criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning a civil case can succeed even if criminal charges are not filed or result in acquittal. Civil proceedings also allow discovery of Uber’s or Lyft’s internal records — complaint logs, driver history, and safety protocols — that are not accessible in criminal cases. Filing a civil lawsuit early preserves your rights and allows your attorney to gather corporate evidence before it is destroyed or overwritten.

Preserve the Uber or Lyft app on your phone without deleting the trip, as the digital record contains the driver’s identity, route data, and timestamps that your attorney can subpoena along with the company’s internal driver file. Seek medical attention at San Francisco General Hospital or another SANE-certified facility as soon as possible to document injuries and preserve forensic evidence — California law does not require you to file a police report to receive a sexual assault exam. Screenshot all in-app communications, save any text messages or email receipts related to the trip, and write a detailed account of what happened while memory is fresh. Contact the San Francisco Police Department’s Special Victims Unit at (415) 553-9225 to file a report, which creates an official record that strengthens both criminal and civil proceedings.

Settlement offers from Uber or Lyft made before litigation are typically far below the true value of a claim because they are designed to resolve cases quickly before extensive discovery reveals the company’s internal knowledge of driver misconduct. In the 2023 Uber assault MDL, individual settlement values varied dramatically based on the severity of the assault and the strength of the negligent hiring evidence — cases with documented prior complaints against the driver commanded significantly higher awards. An attorney can identify all liable parties, quantify future therapy and medical costs, and use evidence of corporate cover-up to argue for punitive damages under California Civil Code §3294. Never sign a release or accept payment from Uber or Lyft without first consulting a San Francisco rideshare sexual abuse attorney, as signing waives all future claims.

The CPUC regulates Transportation Network Companies like Uber and Lyft under General Order 157-E, which mandates annual background check renewals, zero-tolerance sexual assault policies, and mandatory reporting of assaults to the CPUC within 10 days of a driver’s suspension. In 2022, the CPUC fined Lyft $5 million for failing to report safety incidents as required — a public record your attorney can use to demonstrate systemic regulatory non-compliance. Evidence of CPUC violations is directly relevant to negligence per se claims in San Francisco Superior Court, where proof of statutory violation establishes a presumption of negligence. Your attorney can file a public records request with the CPUC to obtain the regulated company’s incident reports and identify whether prior complaints involving the driver who assaulted you were filed or suppressed.

No — California courts and the legislature have consistently held that the independent contractor label does not insulate Uber or Lyft from liability when the company’s own negligence in screening, supervising, or retaining a driver caused the harm. California’s Borello test and the ABC test under Labor Code §2775 (AB 5) are tools for employment classification, but civil tort liability is governed by the separate negligent hiring and negligent entrustment doctrines, which do not require an employment relationship. The court in Jane Doe v. Uber Technologies held that plaintiffs can pursue direct negligence claims against the company regardless of how drivers are classified under labor law. San Francisco Superior Court has repeatedly allowed these claims to proceed to trial, and the independent contractor defense has not prevented substantial jury verdicts or settlements in assault cases.

Contact an attorney as soon as possible — ideally within days of the assault — because Uber and Lyft retain trip records, driver complaint logs, and internal communications on limited data retention schedules, meaning critical evidence may be deleted without a litigation hold. While California’s AB 2777 revival window extends the filing deadline to December 31, 2026 for qualifying historical claims, recent assaults should be pursued promptly to preserve forensic evidence and witness availability. An attorney can send an immediate evidence preservation letter (litigation hold notice) to Uber or Lyft corporate counsel in San Francisco, compelling them to retain all data relating to your driver and trip. Early retention also allows counsel to coordinate with law enforcement and the CPUC simultaneously, building the strongest possible foundation for your civil case.

California Civil Code §51.9 prohibits sexual harassment in professional, service, or business relationships where there is a power imbalance, explicitly including transportation providers among the covered relationships. This statute creates a civil cause of action separate from personal injury claims, allowing rideshare assault survivors to sue both the driver and Uber or Lyft for sexual harassment without proving the traditional employment relationship required under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code §12940). Section 51.9 permits recovery of actual damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, making it a powerful supplement to negligence claims in San Francisco Superior Court. The statute’s broad definition of covered relationships was specifically designed to protect consumers from abuse by service providers, and California courts have applied it to rideshare driver-passenger relationships.