Brianna Mensing vs. Uber Technologies Sexual Assault Bellwether Lawsuit, The Full Story and Final Outcome

Mensing v. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a personal injury and sexual assault lawsuit in which plaintiff Brianna Mensing alleged that an Uber driver grabbed her upper inner thigh during a late-night ride in North Carolina in March 2019 and that Uber bore legal responsibility for his conduct under North Carolina law.

The jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina awarded Mensing $5,000. Despite Uber’s efforts to paint Brianna Mensing as an unreliable narrator with substance abuse issues, the jury found her account true. The driver grabbed her upper inner thigh before dropping her off in Franklin County, north of Raleigh, the jury found, and North Carolina law makes Uber responsible for that assault. Uber called the award a “tiny fraction” of prior demands and signaled plans to appeal.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Plaintiff	Brianna Mensing
Defendant	Uber Technologies, Inc.
Case Context	Second bellwether trial in In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (presiding judge); tried in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Presiding Judge	U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer (MDL Judge, Northern District of California)
Date of Alleged Assault	March 26, 2019
Date Lawsuit Filed	August 2024
Trial Dates	Week of April 14–20, 2026 (jury selection April 14; verdict April 20, 2026)
Legal Claim	Vicarious liability for sexual assault under North Carolina law; negligence
Outcome	Jury verdict for plaintiff — Uber found liable
Judgment Amount	$5,000 in damages awarded to Mensing
Attorney for Plaintiff	William Smith
Uber’s Response	Plans to appeal; called the award a “tiny fraction of previous demands”
Last Updated	April 21, 2026

Case Timeline

Date	Event
March 26, 2019	Brianna Mensing, then 23, takes a late-night Uber ride in North Carolina; alleges driver grabbed her upper inner thigh and made suggestive comments
October 2023	Federal judicial panel centralizes thousands of Uber sexual assault lawsuits into MDL No. 3084 in the Northern District of California before Judge Charles R. Breyer
August 2024	Mensing files her individual lawsuit
February 2026	First federal bellwether trial (Dean v. Uber, Arizona) results in $8,500,000 verdict for plaintiff — plaintiff’s selection
April 14, 2026	Jury selection begins for Mensing bellwether trial in Charlotte, North Carolina — Uber’s selection
April 15, 2026	Opening statements; Mensing takes the stand and testifies about the assault
April 20, 2026	Jury returns verdict — Uber found liable; $5,000 awarded to Mensing

What Is the Brianna Mensing vs. Uber Lawsuit About? In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084

Brianna Mensing alleges in her lawsuit that one of Uber’s drivers asked her to sit in the front seat and grabbed her upper inner thigh before she got out and ran into her boyfriend’s home. It was her second time ever using Uber. She used the app for the first time earlier that night to get to her friend’s place. After their visit, the driver picked her up and drove her 20 minutes down the road, to her boyfriend’s home in Franklin County, just north of Raleigh. In the driveway, the driver grabbed her, Mensing said: “I was horrified. I was almost paralyzed.”

The legal theory at trial was vicarious liability — meaning Mensing argued that because the Uber driver was acting as Uber’s agent at the time of the assault, Uber bears legal responsibility for his conduct. This mirrors the winning theory from the first bellwether trial. Mensing is one of more than 3,500 plaintiffs who filed civil lawsuits against Uber consolidated into MDL No. 3084. U.S. Judge Charles R. Breyer of Northern California presides over all of those cases, and Mensing’s was the second case to go to trial in the United States.

Uber argued it is a technology platform, not a transportation provider, and therefore does not owe the heightened duty to protect passenger safety that applies to taxi companies under North Carolina law. Uber’s defense also leaned heavily on attacking Mensing’s credibility. Uber’s lawyer told the jury that Uber had “zero proof” of the assault, casting doubt on Mensing’s memory and noting the late-night ride in March 2019 happened at what Uber characterized as the height of her struggle with drug addiction. Medical records showed Mensing used crack cocaine and heroin. Mensing did not deny any of the drug use, but said she had just one beer before the 1:30 a.m. ride and that she remembers the assault clearly — and always will.

Who Are Brianna Mensing and Uber Technologies?

Brianna Mensing is a North Carolina woman who was 23 years old at the time of the March 2019 ride. Mensing, who testified that she had struggled for much of her life with addiction to drugs and alcohol, said her greatest fear in pursuing the case was that she would not be believed. She said she had continued with her lawsuit in the hope that the company would take responsibility. “I’m here because this is ridiculous that it keeps happening to women,” she said.

Related article: Logan Land vs. City of Keokuk, Iowa Fourth Amendment Wrongful Arrest Lawsuit, Full Story and Final Outcome

Uber Technologies, Inc. is the world’s largest rideshare platform. Uber’s own safety reports document 12,522 sexual assault reports across 2017–2022 in the five most severe categories. The MDL that includes Mensing’s case now counts over 3,500 plaintiffs — and the case count has been growing steadily. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that Uber failed to implement adequate safety measures, properly screen drivers, and protect passengers from foreseeable harm.

How Did the Mensing vs. Uber Lawsuit End?

The jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina returned a verdict in Mensing’s favor on April 20, 2026, finding Uber legally responsible for the driver’s conduct. The jury awarded $5,000 in damages.

“This is a great result. Uber comes into court and tries to trash victims, but nine people sitting on the jury believed her,” said William Smith, Mensing’s attorney, in an interview after the verdict. Mensing said she felt “good” after the verdict. She declined to be interviewed but had told the jury her greatest fear was not being believed.

Matt Kallman, a spokesman for Uber, noted that the jury had awarded a far smaller sum of $5,000. “The jury’s award represents a tiny fraction of previous demands, and should further bring these cases back to reality,” Kallman said. He added that Uber had “strong grounds for appeal” in both bellwether cases. The driver, who was never criminally charged, denied touching Mensing’s leg and told jurors in a recorded video deposition that he did not recognize Mensing.

The verdict is a liability finding against Uber — meaning the jury accepted Mensing’s account and held Uber legally responsible under North Carolina law. The low dollar amount reflects the nature of the specific assault alleged — a one-to-two-second unwanted touch — rather than a factual rejection of Mensing’s claims. Mensing did not ask for a specific dollar amount. “All she wants is accountability,” Smith told the jury in closing arguments.

What Does the Mensing vs. Uber Case Mean for Other Survivors?

This verdict is the second consecutive jury finding of Uber’s liability in the federal MDL bellwether series — and its significance extends far beyond the $5,000 award. The lawsuit was a second bellwether in federal court proceedings that have consolidated thousands of lawsuits against Uber, allowing some procedural matters to be presented before the same judge while each case is tried individually. The verdicts in bellwether cases are not binding on the other lawsuits, but they provide a test of the arguments in front of a jury.

Legal experts project settlements of $300,000–$2,000,000 per case depending on assault severity and evidence, with a court-approved qualified settlement fund already in place. Two consecutive liability findings against Uber — one for $8,500,000 in Arizona and one for $5,000 in North Carolina — give plaintiffs’ attorneys powerful evidence of how juries respond to these claims when taken to trial. The next two bellwether trials have been proposed to run consecutively in California court beginning September 14, 2026. Each additional verdict will continue to shape settlement pressure on Uber for the thousands of remaining cases.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who filed the lawsuit and why?

 Brianna Mensing, a North Carolina woman, filed suit in August 2024 against Uber Technologies, Inc. over a March 26, 2019 Uber ride in which she alleges the driver grabbed her upper inner thigh and made suggestive comments. She sought accountability for the assault and to hold Uber responsible for its driver’s conduct under North Carolina vicarious liability law.

2. What court handled this case?

 The Mensing trial was held in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte. The case is part of MDL No. 3084 — In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation — overseen by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California.

3. Has the case been resolved? 

Yes. A jury returned a verdict for Mensing on April 20, 2026, finding Uber liable and awarding her $5,000 in damages. Uber stated it has “strong grounds for appeal” and has indicated it plans to challenge both this verdict and the first bellwether verdict.

4. How much money was involved?

 The jury awarded Mensing $5,000. Mensing did not request a specific dollar amount — her attorney told the jury she sought accountability, not a particular sum. The award reflects the specific nature of the assault alleged — an unwanted touch lasting one to two seconds — and not a finding that Mensing’s account was less than fully credible.

5. Can I read the court documents?

 Yes. The MDL docket for In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084 is publicly available through PACER and CourtListener at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

6. Was the Uber driver criminally charged? 

The driver, Jeffery Richardson, was never charged with assault. He denied the allegations. The Mensing case is a civil lawsuit — civil liability and criminal charges operate under entirely different legal standards. A civil jury can find Uber liable even without a criminal conviction.

7. What does this verdict mean for other Uber assault survivors? 

This verdict is the second consecutive finding of Uber’s liability in the federal MDL bellwether trial series. Bellwether verdicts are not binding on other cases but directly influence how much Uber may offer to settle the 3,500+ remaining individual lawsuits. Legal experts project settlement values of $300,000–$2,000,000 per case depending on assault severity and available evidence. Each survivor’s case is decided on its own facts.

8. Can I still join a lawsuit against Uber if I was assaulted by a driver? 

This is not a class action — there is no single claim form to file. Each survivor files an individual lawsuit. These cases are not part of a class action — each survivor files separately. Many attorneys handling these cases offer free consultations and work on a contingency basis, meaning you pay no legal fees unless they win. Statutes of limitations apply, and the legal window to file varies by state — do not wait indefinitely. Contact an attorney experienced in rideshare sexual assault litigation as soon as possible.

Sources & References

• MDL No. 3084 CourtListener docket: courtlistener.com
• JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3084 (October 2023): jpml.uscourts.gov

If you or someone you know has experienced sexual assault, confidential support is available 24/7 through the RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-4673 or at rainn.org.

Case Type Classification Tag: Sexual Harassment / Personal Injury — Rideshare Assault Multidistrict Litigation

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against official court records and verified public sources on April 21, 2026. Last Updated: April 21, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Information about ongoing or concluded legal cases is based on publicly available court records and verified reporting. Allegations described in this article have not necessarily been proven in court. For advice regarding a particular legal situation, consult a qualified attorney.