Who's Involved?

This case has a single named claimant with a personal story at its center - unlike ACLU v. Aon, but similar in that light to Mobley v. Workday - plus a union and a national equality regulator behind him, and three Uber entities and a technology vendor named or referenced in the case.

Pa Edrissa Manjang

Pa Edrissa Manjang is a Black courier of African descent who began driving for Uber's Uber Eats food delivery service in the UK on 29 November 2019. He brought the Employment Tribunal claim personally, as the sole claimant, alleging he was harassed, victimised, and indirectly discriminated against because of his race under the UK's Equality Act 2010. (source: Employment Tribunal preliminary judgment, paragraphs 8-9)

The three Uber respondents

Manjang's claim names three separate Uber entities as respondents:

• Uber Eats UK Ltd - the UK company operating the Uber Eats delivery platform Manjang worked on.
• Uber Portier B.V. - a Netherlands-registered Uber entity.
• Uber London Ltd - a separate UK Uber entity. Uber argued this company should be dropped from the case entirely because, it said, Uber London Ltd isn't involved in Uber Eats's day-to-day UK operations and had no involvement with Manjang's work. The tribunal declined to drop it at the preliminary stage, saying it couldn't resolve that factual dispute without full evidence and a proper hearing.

(source: Employment Tribunal preliminary judgment, paragraphs 3 and 95)

Microsoft, as the named technology provider

Microsoft is not a party to the case - it wasn't sued, and no claim was brought against it directly. But the tribunal record describes the identity-check system at the center of the dispute as relying on "Microsoft facial recognition software" (also referred to in later tribunal filings as "Microsoft Real Time ID Check software"), which Uber Eats introduced in the UK in April 2020. Separately, campaigning groups including the ADCU have publicly called on Microsoft to review or suspend the licensing of its facial recognition technology (sometimes called the Face API) for use in this kind of driver-verification system, citing wider, independently published research finding that facial recognition and facial detection systems have historically been measurably less accurate for people with darker skin tones. Microsoft has separately and publicly acknowledged, in its own research blog, that its facial recognition technology previously had higher error rates by skin tone and gender, and said it made technical improvements to reduce that gap - though that acknowledgment concerned the technology generally, not a statement about the Manjang case specifically. (source: Employment Tribunal reconsideration judgment, paragraph 70)

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)

The EHRC is Great Britain's national equality regulator, an independent statutory body. It provided funding and legal support for Manjang's case - a role it can play under its powers in the Equality Act 2006 - and its Chairwoman, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, publicly commented when the case settled. The EHRC's backing is one signal (though not the only one) that this case was seen as raising an issue of wider public importance, not just a single individual dispute. (source: EHRC press release)

The App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU)

The ADCU is a UK trade union representing private-hire drivers and delivery couriers, including gig-economy workers like Uber Eats couriers who are not always classed as traditional employees. It supported and helped fund Manjang's case, and has separately campaigned publicly against the use of facial recognition verification technology in the gig economy. (source: EHRC press release)

For what's actually happened in this matter so far, see the timeline.