LOS ANGELES - A state appeals panel has ruled Lyft and other app-operated rideshare services have no obligation to conduct criminal background checks on passengers, to protect their drivers from known dangerous criminals.
In 2020, Lyft driver Abdu Lkader Al Shikha sued Lyft Inc. in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The lawsuit came two months after Al Shikha had been attacked and stabbed by a passenger, identified as Ricky A. Alvarez. According to court documents, Alvarez stabbed Al Shikha repeatedly, injuring his left hand and both legs, in the attack that came without warning or provocation.
California Second District Appellate Justice Rashida A. Adams
| Courts.ca.gov/
According to the complaint, Alvarez has a lengthy criminal history, "including charges for drugs, theft, and illegal weapons charges." Al Shikha asserts the criminal history could have been easily revealed with a basic criminal background search.
In his complaint, Al Shikha asserted Lyft has an obligation to its drivers under California law to provide its drivers with a "safe place of employment." The lawsuit accuses Lyft of negligence for allegedly failing to attempt to screen out potentially dangerous passengers, as measured by criminal background.
Al Shikha noted California law requires Lyft and other rideshare companies to conduct background checks on drivers for the safety of passengers. Potential drivers can be denied the opportunity to earn income through the ridesharing system, if the background check reveals "disqualifying convictions," including violent crimes, human trafficking or terrorism-related offenses.
DUI, bribery and other "serious felonies," including "hate crimes," can also result in disqualification under the state law.
However, Al Shikha said Lyft and its competitors should also be required to conduct similar background checks on passengers to protect their drivers from known violent offenders, particularly given the rise in recent years of attacks by passengers on drivers.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Hernandez sided with Lyft, ruling in 2022 that California law forbids rideshare companies from conducting such passenger background checks.
Al Shikha appealed, but fared no better before the California Second District Appellate Court.
There, a three justice panel of the court on May 17 upheld Judge Hernandez's ruling.
In the ruling, Adams and his colleagues agreed with Lyft that imposing a duty of passenger background checks would create a "significant burden" on Lyft and their competitors.
"Beyond simply obtaining a criminal history, some form of analysis would be necessary to identify what specific prior convictions appear in a passenger's criminal history," Adams wrote. "Moreover, Al Shikha’s assertion that Lyft would incur only insignificant additional costs since it already obtains criminal background checks of drivers, appears to ignore the much larger volume of criminal background checks that would be necessary to screen every potential passenger."
The appeals panel further noted such background checks could effectively wall off ridesharing services from millions of Californians - perhaps one in three adults - who have an arrest or conviction record.
And the panel said requiring rideshare operators to screen passengers for criminal history would run counter to the goal of the state of California and other governments to curtail the ability of private companies to use criminal background checks to screen out tenants or other customers. They said such screening could prove discriminatory against black or Latino passengers.
The justices said any attempt by Lyft to conduct such criminal history checks on passengers would expose the company to future potential lawsuits for discrimination or violation of privacy, while accomplishing relatively little to protect drivers.
"Not only may incorrect reports be ineffective in screening out passengers likely to commit violence, Lyft could face liability for inaccurate screenings, both from drivers harmed and potentially from customers denied rides based on incorrect information," Adams wrote.
And the justices rejected Al Shikha's assertion that violent attacks on drivers by passengers should be considered "foreseeable" under the law, requiring rideshare operators to take action to prevent such attacks.
"... The utility of criminal background checks in identifying those likely to commit violence is limited and questionable," Adams wrote. "Criminal background check reports on every prospective rider would not necessarily provide information from which either Lyft or individual drivers could reliably decide whether a potential passenger poses a threat of violence to the driver."
Lyft did not respond to a request from The Record for comment about the decision.
Al Shikha is represented by attorney Michael D. McLachlan, of McLachlan Law, of Hermosa Beach.
Lyft has been represented by attorneys Jason R. Litt and Rebecca G. Powell, of Horvitz & Levy, of Los Angeles; and Paul S. Cowie, Rachel J. Moroski and Nina Montazeri, of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, of Menlo Park and San Francisco.