Thomas Liu v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

facts to support his claims of disparate impact and disparate treatment.

1 Given that our review is de novo, we need not further address Liu’s contention that the district court improperly applied a heightened pleading standard in evaluating his claims.

3 A

To state a claim for discrimination under Title VII and the FEHA based on a

disparate impact theory, a plaintiff must plausibly allege: (1) a “significant

disparate impact on a protected class or group”; (2) “specific employment practices

or selection criteria at issue”; and (3) “a causal relationship between the challenged

practices or criteria and the disparate impact.” Bolden-Hardge v. Office of Cal.

State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1227 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). Assuming

arguendo that Liu has adequately pleaded a specific employment practice—viz.,

“Uber’s use of its star rating system to terminate drivers”—we conclude that he has

failed to plead sufficient facts to raise a plausible inference that this practice is

causally related to a “significant disparate impact” on non-white drivers. In

arguing for a contrary conclusion, Liu relies on three categories of allegations, but

we conclude that, even…