Lyft app in use. (Lauryn Schroeder)

A Chula Vista woman has accused a Lyft driver of following her into her home and groping her in a sexual way against her will after she used the ride-sharing service last month.

The woman filed a lawsuit this week in San Diego Superior Court against the San Francisco-based company and one of its drivers. The lawsuit alleges sexual battery, acts of violence because of sex, civil rights and gender violence and negligent hiring, retention and supervision.

The Chula Vista Police Department is conducting a criminal investigation with Lyft’s cooperation, Capt. Lon Turner said. There have been no arrests.


According to the complaint, the woman used Lyft on Sept. 5 to request a ride home. The woman got ill and vomited in the car. The driver said she would have to pay a $200 cleaning fee, or $100 if paid in cash, the lawsuit says.

When the two arrived at the home, the woman went inside to get the money and found that the driver had followed her inside, the complaint says. The driver grabbed the woman by the waist and began groping her buttocks and hips, and he asked her to perform a sexual favor in lieu of the cleaning fee, according to the complaint.

The woman was able to fight off the driver, and got him to leave, the complaint said. A police report on the incident said it happened about 1:30 a.m. on Sept. 5.

Both the police report and the lawsuit name the victim. The San Diego Union-Tribune is withholding the name at the request of the woman’s lawyer because the newspaper’s policy is not to identify victims of sexual crimes without their consent. The driver is identified in the police report and lawsuit only as Alan.


“We take all matters involving safety extremely seriously and were deeply concerned to hear about this incident,” Lyft said in a statement. “Upon receiving this report, we immediately deactivated the driver and reached out to law enforcement to offer assistance.”

Lyft charges passengers a “Trust and Safety Fee,” which, according to a spokeswoman, “helps support a number of trust and safety-related costs, including criminal background checks, insurance, vehicle inspections and support staff dedicated to addressing trust and safety issues.”

The civil complaint alleges that Lyft charged the woman $1.50 for the fee, but didn’t do the work necessary to protect her.

“Lyft did not perform any background checks on (the driver) before hiring him or during his employment, or any of its drivers, or in the alternative, any background checks that were performed were inadequate,” the complaint said. “Lyft did not at any time require (the driver), or any of its drivers, to participate in any safety training or education programs.”


Spokeswoman Chelsea Wilson said all drivers who apply to drive for the company are given a criminal background check, a driving record check, a vehicle inspection and an in-person screening.

“The background check is conducted by a third party expert, Sterling Backcheck, and includes a Social Security number trace, a county criminal record check, an enhanced nationwide criminal search, and a Department of Justice 50-state sex offender search,” Wilson said.

The civil lawsuit in San Diego says the company’s background checks don’t include fingerprints to confirm identification.

A computer search of Chula Vista Police Department’s records turned up one other call for service in the last 12 months involving a report of an Uber or Lyft driver committing a crime against a passenger, Turner said. The passenger reported that an Uber driver had stolen the passenger’s property. There was no arrest.


Concerns that Lyft, Uber and other rideshare companies aren’t doing enough to protect passengers from drivers with criminal histories has fueled political debate about how much regulation is appropriate for the companies who provide the networks of thousands of contractor-like drivers.

The California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates rideshare companies, doesn’t require drivers to provide fingerprints.

Requirements for taxi drivers are typically set at the municipal level, and fingerprints are required in Chula Vista and San Diego.

San Francisco and Los Angeles district attorneys filed a consumer protection lawsuit late last year against Uber, claiming that the company misled the public about the rigor of its background checks.


According to the lawsuit, prosecutors looked into the criminal histories of Uber drivers who had been cited for illegal pickups at Los Angeles International Airport and identified more than 20 with felony convictions for crimes including murder, assault or misdemeanor driving under the influence.

The lawsuit mentions a driver who was convicted of second-degree murder and spent 26 years in prison. The driver used another name when he applied to drive for Uber, and a background check didn’t turn up his criminal history.

Lyft was named in a similar consumer protection lawsuit by Los Angeles and San Francisco late last year. Lyft settled, agreeing to pay civil penalties of $500,000, with half waived in a year if the company complies with all requirements.

Lyft, Uber and others have opposed regulation that would require fingerprinting, because putting so much onus on drivers could discourage many applicants who just want to drive part-time. The companies say fingerprinting isn’t always accurate, and can misidentify people, implicating applicants who have done nothing wrong. The companies say their existing background checks are just as effective as background checks requiring fingerprint identification.