Case Overview

Cases Covered: Uber Sexual Assault MDL (Lyft Discovery Order) · TEKSystems Arbitration Ruling

Verticals: Workplace & Employment, Personal Injury Litigation

Last Updated: February 2026

Status: Active litigation

Workplace & Employment Litigation Roundup: February 2026

Two significant legal developments emerged in workplace and employment litigation this February — one involving a landmark discovery ruling in the ongoing Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation, and another involving a Ninth Circuit decision that could give thousands of workers a path around mandatory arbitration clauses. Here's what you need to know about each case.

1. Lyft Ordered to Produce Driver Records in Uber Sexual Assault MDL

Status: Active MDL — Discovery Phase

Who May Be Affected: Rideshare passengers who allege sexual assault by drivers working for both Uber and Lyft

Key Development: Federal court compels Lyft to disclose misconduct records on four drivers

A California federal judge has ordered Lyft to hand over sexual misconduct records it holds on four men who allegedly assaulted passengers while driving for Uber, according to recent reporting on the case. The ruling marks a notable moment in the broader multidistrict litigation, which consolidates numerous sexual assault claims filed against Uber in federal court.

The court's order reflects a growing legal argument that drivers who work — or have worked — across multiple rideshare platforms may carry conduct histories relevant to cases involving any one of those platforms. By compelling Lyft, a third party to the Uber MDL, to produce its internal records, the court has signaled that platform companies may not be able to shield misconduct data from discovery simply because an incident occurred on a competitor's service.

The MDL encompasses claims from dozens of passengers who allege they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers. Plaintiffs in these cases have broadly alleged that Uber failed to adequately screen drivers and protect passengers from foreseeable harm.

Lyft's production of driver misconduct records could prove significant in establishing whether the implicated drivers had documented histories of misconduct before or after their time on Uber's platform — information plaintiffs' attorneys argue is central to their negligence claims.

What to watch: How the information contained in Lyft's records affects the broader MDL proceedings, and whether additional third-party discovery orders follow.

2. Ninth Circuit Rules TEKSystems Recruiters Can Pursue Unpaid Wage Claims in Court

Status: Appellate ruling issued January 28, 2026 — case returns to lower court

Who May Be Affected: Current and former TEKSystems recruiters who worked in California

Key Development: Ninth Circuit affirms arbitration agreement is unenforceable due to employer misconduct

On January 28, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that employees of TEKSystems, Inc. — a major technology staffing firm — are not required to resolve their California labor law claims through arbitration. The decision affirms an earlier ruling by the Northern District of California.

At the center of the dispute is how TEKSystems communicated a newly introduced arbitration agreement to its workforce. According to the Ninth Circuit's findings, the employer's communications about the agreement were found to have threatened the fairness of the legal proceedings — a basis on which the lower court had declined to enforce the arbitration clause.

This ruling has notable implications for employment litigation more broadly. Mandatory arbitration agreements are widely used by employers to route workplace disputes away from the courts and into private arbitration proceedings, which tend to favor employers and limit workers' ability to pursue collective claims. When courts find that the manner in which an arbitration agreement was implemented undermined workers' rights, those agreements can be invalidated.

For TEKSystems recruiters, the ruling means their California wage and hour claims — which may include allegations of unpaid overtime, missed rest breaks, or other violations under California labor law — may now proceed in court rather than behind closed arbitration doors.

California labor law provides some of the strongest worker protections in the country, and claims under the California Labor Code can include recovery of unpaid wages, civil penalties, and attorney's fees. Workers who believe they may have been subject to similar wage violations could benefit from understanding this ruling and its implications.

What to watch: How the case proceeds in district court now that arbitration has been rejected, and whether TEKSystems faces a broader class or collective action on the underlying wage claims.

Key Takeaways

• Third-party discovery in MDL litigation is expanding. The order requiring Lyft to produce records in the Uber sexual assault MDL illustrates that companies can be compelled to disclose misconduct data even when they are not a named defendant — particularly when their records may be relevant to the safety of shared workers.
• Arbitration agreements are not always enforceable. Courts can — and do — invalidate mandatory arbitration clauses when employers' conduct in implementing those agreements is found to compromise workers' access to fair legal proceedings.
• California wage and hour claims remain a major litigation front. The TEKSystems ruling underscores California's position as a battleground state for employment litigation, with workers in that state maintaining robust options to pursue unpaid wage claims in court.
• Rideshare litigation continues to evolve. The Uber sexual assault MDL is far from resolved, and rulings like this latest discovery order suggest courts are willing to cast a wide net to ensure plaintiffs have access to relevant evidence.

Were you a rideshare passenger who experienced misconduct, or a current or former TEKSystems employee with concerns about unpaid wages? An employment or personal injury attorney can help you understand whether these developments are relevant to your situation.

InjuryClaims.com reports on class action lawsuits and settlements as a public information service. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Eligibility for any settlement or lawsuit is determined by attorneys and courts, not by this publication.