Timeline of Developments
Last development: March 27, 2024
- March 27, 2024
Uber settles with Manjang ahead of the scheduled full trial
With the 17-day full merits hearing still months away, Uber and Manjang reach an out-of-court financial settlement, avoiding a trial that would have required the tribunal to actually decide whether discrimination occurred. The EHRC, which helped fund the case, and the ADCU announce the settlement publicly; the amount is not disclosed, and as is standard in settlements, Uber does not admit liability - a company spokesperson told reporters that 'automated facial verification was not the reason for Mr Manjang's temporary loss of access to his courier account.' Manjang says: 'My case shines a spotlight on the potential problems with the use of AI, particularly for low paid workers in the gig economy who want to understand how decisions are being taken which affect their livelihoods.' Because the case settled, there was never a full tribunal ruling on whether Uber's facial recognition process actually discriminated against Manjang - the settlement resolves the dispute between the parties without that legal question being formally decided.
- October 16, 2023
Tribunal largely rejects Uber's request to reconsider that ruling
Uber separately appealed the July 2022 decision, and the appeal tribunal (the EAT) paused that appeal to let Uber ask the original judge to reconsider her ruling first. At a further hearing on 18 September 2023, Uber - by then also relying on new evidence about its internal 'Bounce' and 'McFly' account-flagging rules - again argued the case should be struck out or a deposit ordered. In a judgment dated 16 October 2023, Judge Frazer again refuses to strike out any part of the claim or order a deposit, and allows most of a further amendment application from Manjang. She does uphold one narrow part of Uber's challenge, ruling that a specific claim about Uber's conduct during litigation could not proceed because it is protected by 'judicial proceedings immunity' (a rule shielding conduct of a legal case from being separately sued over). She also records that the case had by then been listed for a 17-day full merits hearing in November 2024.
- July 9, 2022
Tribunal rejects Uber's bid to strike out the case
In a judgment dated 9 July 2022 and published 25 July 2022, Employment Judge Frazer dismisses Uber's strike-out and deposit-order application in full, keeps Uber London Ltd as a party pending further evidence, and allows Manjang to amend his claim. This is not a ruling that discrimination happened - it means the tribunal was not persuaded, at this early stage, that Manjang's case was so weak it should be thrown out before trial. The judge notes that 'the reasons advanced by the Respondent for deactivation were inconsistent with the reasons that were actually given to the Claimant' and that this and other disputed facts would need full evidence at a later hearing before anyone could decide what really happened.
- May 19, 2022
Preliminary hearing on Uber's bid to strike out the case
Uber applies to have Manjang's claims thrown out entirely (a 'strike out'), or in the alternative to require him to pay a deposit of up to 1,000 pounds to keep pursuing the discrimination claim - a tool tribunals can use to discourage weak claims. Uber also argues one of the three Uber entities it named, Uber London Ltd, should be dropped from the case. At the same hearing, Manjang's lawyers apply to amend and expand his claim, based on inconsistencies they say emerged in Uber's account of why he was deactivated. Employment Judge A Frazer hears arguments from both sides at the East London Hearing Centre and reserves her decision.
- October 1, 2021
Manjang files his Employment Tribunal claim
Manjang formally presents his claim (ET1) to the Employment Tribunal, with detailed grounds of complaint dated 28 September 2021. He claims harassment related to race (section 26, Equality Act 2010), victimisation (section 27), and indirect race discrimination (section 19) against Uber Eats UK Ltd and two related Uber entities, Uber Portier B.V. and Uber London Ltd. He is supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU). This is an Employment Tribunal claim under UK equality law - not a criminal case, and at this point not yet any finding that discrimination occurred.
- September 16, 2021
Uber reactivates Manjang's account, according to Uber's own account
According to Uber's own submissions to the tribunal, Manjang's account was restored on this date after an internal review. The tribunal record notes that Uber's decision to reactivate the account came to its attention partly because Manjang's intention to bring legal action had been reported in the press. Manjang's side disputes that he was clearly or promptly told about the reactivation, and this became one of the disputed factual issues the tribunal said would need full evidence at a later trial, not something it could resolve at this early stage.
- April 30, 2021
Manjang is suspended from the Uber Eats app
At 9.13pm, Manjang gets an email telling him his account is permanently suspended, citing 'information that you have shared your Uber Eats delivery partner account on multiple occasions.' Less than three hours later, at 11.56pm, he gets a second message saying he had failed a facial recognition check and that Uber could not verify the submitted photo was actually him. Manjang replies that this is false and writes: 'your algorithm by the looks of things is racist and this needs to be addressed as it is not able to recognise and verify my photos which is probably why I get asked to take photos of myself multiple times a day.' He later relies on this message as the first act protected by UK whistleblowing/victimisation law in his case. The next day, an Uber agent tells him the company would 'never discriminate' and confirms the account stays deactivated. Uber's later account to the tribunal is that the real trigger was a separate, unrelated flag for 'unusual account activity' (multiple suspicious login attempts), not a facial recognition failure - and that the reasons it initially gave Manjang were wrong, due to what it calls internal human error.
- December 1, 2020
Manjang's first flagged verification check
Pa Edrissa Manjang, a Black courier of African descent who had been driving for Uber Eats since November 2019, submits a selfie for the Real Time ID Check. A human reviewer decides it does not match the photo on his account file - his first 'verification failure.' Uber later tells the tribunal this was the only check Manjang ever failed, and that it was reviewed by a person rather than decided purely by software. Manjang disputes that this fully explains what happened next.
- April 1, 2020
Uber Eats introduces Microsoft-powered facial recognition checks in the UK
The exact day within April 2020 isn't stated in the tribunal record - shown here as the 1st for sorting purposes only. Uber Eats UK Ltd rolls out a 'Real Time ID Check' system for couriers, built on Microsoft facial recognition/verification software. Couriers must take a real-time selfie in the app, which is compared against their account profile photo before they can go online and start earning. Uber says the process is a hybrid one (the 'Hybrid Real-Time ID' or HRTID process): a courier can be checked by computer comparison or by a human reviewer, and if a check is flagged as a mismatch, a team of reviewers looks at it. Unions later say the underlying technology is Microsoft's Face API.