Uber Won't Change Background Checks After Michigan Killing Spree

By Michael Klazema on 2/29/2016

Uber has come under fire for its background check policies repeatedly over the past few years, with numerous drivers for the ridesharing service accused of assault, rape, and other offenses. Now, though, the company is facing arguably its biggest controversy yet. On Saturday, January 20th, a 45-year-old Kalamazoo, Michigan man drove around the city on a killing spree. The suspect, who was later arrested without incident, shot eight people at three different locations, leaving six of his victims dead. He was also an Uber driver, who allegedly continued to accept fares through the mobile-based ridesharing service while he was driving around the city looking for victims.

The suspect has only been driving for Uber since January, at which point he passed the company's usual background check with no red flags. In the wake of the Kalamazoo shooting, critics of Uber—both in the college town and throughout the country—have criticized Uber's vetting processes. If Uber had done more to screen its drivers, would this man have been allowed to accept fares through the service? Specifically, critics of Uber want the company to start running fingerprint-based background checks of all drivers. The argument for fingerprint-based checks predates the Kalamazoo incident significantly.

In the past, Uber has argued that running fingerprint background checks would not help to uncover psychological issues or more accurate criminal histories. In fact, the company has previously argued that fingerprint checks often include "false positives," because they can turn up arrest reports even for individuals who were never formally convicted of a crime. Arrests offer no proof of guilt and can therefore not legally be considered as part of a pre-employment background check. Uber says that, because of false positives, a fingerprint background check system would be too discriminatory and too unreliable to deliver fair subjective findings.

The company isn't changing its tune in light of the Kalamazoo killing spree, either. And frankly, Uber's chief security officer was right when he said that a more thorough criminal history check—fingerprint-based or otherwise—would not have flagged this particular driver. The suspect had no criminal history. His neighbors said he was a completely normal and friendly family man. Even according to his prior fares, the man was a pleasant, amenable driver. Of the 100 or so fares the suspect had accepted since joining Uber in January, he had a rating on the service of 4.73 out of 5.

In other words, Uber is probably right that this particular incident didn't provide much of an argument for fingerprint background check. However, not all cases are like this one, where the perpetrator of an offense had no prior criminal history. If there is a way that Uber can learn more about their drivers' pasts, the company frankly owes it to their passengers to explore such an avenue.

Furthermore, some critics of Uber are reaching beyond criminal history checks and want the company to screen its drivers for mental illness or any trace of psychological or emotional instability. For a company as big as Uber, such close and in-depth psychological checkups are likely both logistically and financially impractical. As of December 2014, the company had more than 160,000 active drivers in the United States and has undoubtedly grown since. Ordering in-depth exams on the emotional wellness of each of those people would either force Uber to go out of business or drastically reduce the number of drivers willing to jump through the hoops necessary to work as part of the service.

Bottom line, Uber probably won't be making any changes to their background check policies in the wake of the Kalamazoo shooting, and it's unlikely that better background checks could have prevented the tragedy in the first place. None of that will stop Uber's critics from calling for background check policy changes, however.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.