A Melbourne ride share driver booted from the Uber Driver app for allegedly masturbating has won his Fair Work unfair deactivation claim. The Fair Work Commission found that Uber had not proven the worker had engaged in sexual harassment. The passenger who made the allegation admitted she had not seen the driver touch his genitals. However, she claimed she witnessed “physical movements” consistent with the act, including the driver reaching for tissues from his glove box.
In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work unfair deactivation claim: Shahid Mansoor v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025]. Later, we’ll explore another case of an Uber driver who allegedly kissed a passenger.
Shahid Mansoor began driving for Uber in February 2016. He used the Uber Driver app, which is run by the company’s Australian entity Rasier Pacific. Up until his unfair deactivation in 2025, Mr. Mansoor had completed over 3,000 trips. He performed work under a services agreement. This stated that sexual harassment of any kind is prohibited and that a violation of Uber’s community guidelines could restrict or remove his access to the Uber app.
Mr. Mansoor had a number of passenger complaints, some of which involved alleged sexual harassment. In October 2018, a passenger alleged that he made comments of a sexual nature, resulting in Uber issuing a Warning but no further action. A second similar complaint followed the next month. This time, Mr. Mansoor’s access was temporarily blocked before being restored. He was warned that any further complaint might result in permanent deactivation from the Uber Driver app.
In his Fair Work unfair deactivation claim, Mr. Mansoor strenuously denied any of these sexual harassment incidents had taken place.
On 29 May 2025, Rasier Pacific received another complaint about Mr. Mansoor. A female passenger alleged that during a trip Mr. Mansoor had masturbated while driving. The passenger, who was in the back seat, said that she did not see him touch his genitals. However, she said that she could see his “physical movements” and “heavy breathing.” She also said that she saw Mr. Mansoor reach for tissues from the glove box and then use them on himself.
Rasier Pacific promptly suspended Mr. Mansoor’s account pending an investigation. One week later, he was issued a Preliminary Deactivation Notice and Mr. Mansoor’s access to the Uber Driver app was temporarily restricted. Crucially, the notice failed to specify the nature of the alleged 29 May 2025 sexual harassment incident. Instead, it alleged “multiple instances of sexual misconduct,” referencing two complaints from 2018. Rasier Pacific told Mr. Mansoor that it was considering deactivation.
Mr. Mansoor denied the allegations, stating that his actions may have been misinterpreted. He attributed his physical movements to the routine nature of his work and his “big tummy,” which he said forces him to adjust his seat belt regularly. He also said that due to driving continuously for up to 12 hours “I do touch my hair and beard.” Mr. Mansoor also expressed frustration with Rasier Pacific’s lack of understanding of context. He urged the company to “be realistic and get yourself on the road.” He said that doing so would allow them to see how passengers “treats us like a slave sometime.”
Mr. Mansoor also told Rasier Pacific that “I haven’t even been informed that what actually happened” regarding the latest passenger complaint. He later told the Fair Work Commission that he was only told specific details once he had filed his Fair Work unfair deactivation claim. During cross-examination, he rejected specific details of the allegation. Mr. Mansoor said that he did not recall the car shaking or breathing heavily, and rejected the claim that he kept tissues in the glove box.
Despite his response, Rasier Pacific formally deactivated Mr. Mansoor from the Uber Driver app on 13 June 2025. It informed him via an in-app message, again failing to specify the reason for deactivation. Mr. Mansoor subsequently filed a Fair Work unfair deactivation claim.
In his Fair Work unfair deactivation claim, Mr. Mansoor vehemently denied the allegation of sexual harassment. He argued to the Fair Work Commission that Rasier Pacific had relied on the previous complaints, noting that they had been investigated and closed years earlier. Mr. Mansoor said that getting kicked off the Uber app saw him lose his primary source of income. He claimed that he had suffered “severe” financial hardship, distress, humiliation and reputational damage. Mr. Mansoor estimated that his unfair deactivation resulted in lost income of $19,695.83 up to mid-October 2025.
Meanwhile, Rasier Pacific, argued that the deactivation of Mr. Mansoor was fair as he had taken part in serious misconduct on 29 May 2025. It also argued that there was a valid reason for deactivation due to Mr. Mansoor’s “ongoing and repeated misconduct.” Rasier Pacific contended that an order for reactivation would pose a safety concern to passengers and other road users.
Mr. Mansoor’s Fair Work unfair deactivation claim was heard by the Commission in October 2025. It first examined whether the 2025 complaint of sexual harassment was proven and constituted a valid reason for deactivation. The Commission said that Rasier Pacific bore the “evidentiary onus” of proving the conduct occurred. It noted that the company “brought no direct evidence” from the passenger and that the case relied on “hearsay” evidence.
Consequently, the Commission was not satisfied that there was evidence that Mr. Mansoor had engaged in sexual harassment. Having made this finding, it followed that he was not deactivated for serious misconduct.
The Fair Work Commission next turned to the claim that Mr. Mansoor had engaged in repeated inappropriate behaviour. It dismissed Rasier Pacific’s reliance on the historical complaints from 2018 and 2019. The Commission found those matters to be “stale,” noting they were investigated and closed at the time. It therefore found that Mr. Mansoor had not engaged in a pattern of repeated misconduct that would establish a valid reason for his deactivation.
In addition, the Commission established that Rasier Pacific had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. This was because the Preliminary Deactivation Notice failed to specify the nature of the alleged 29 May 2025 misconduct. The Commission said that this left Mr. Mansoor unable to “properly respond.” Rasier Pacific had also failed to specify the reason for deactivation in the Final Deactivation Notice.
The Fair Work Commission accepted Mr. Mansoor’s evidence regarding the severe personal and financial impact of the unfair deactivation. It rejected Rasier Pacific’s contention that reactivation would be inappropriate due to safety concerns. This was because Mr. Mansoor’s alleged sexual harassment had not been proven.
Ruling in favour of his Fair Work unfair deactivation claim, the Commission ordered Rasier Pacific to reinstate Mr. Mansoor’s access to the Uber Driver app within seven days. To compensate him for lost earnings, it also ordered the company to pay Mr. Mansoor $6,073.23.
Another recent Fair Work unfair deactivation claim is detailed in the case Anwar Kareem Al Hussein v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025]. Sydney-based Anwar Kareem Hussein began working as an Uber driver in July 2016. Up until his deactivation in June 2025, he had completed more than 20,000 trips. He performed work via the Uber Driver app, which is managed by Uber’s Australian subsidiary Rasier Pacific.
Mr. Al Hussein performed work under a services agreement with the subsidiary. This agreement stated that he must “at all times” act in a safe and professional manner while driving. It stated that sexual harassment of any kind is prohibited and that a violation of Uber’s community guidelines could restrict or remove his access to the Uber app.
Mr. Al Hussein’s Fair Work unfair deactivation claim detailed several alleged historical instances of what Uber referred to as “sexually inappropriate behaviour.” The first was in August 2016, referred to in Fair Work Commission proceedings as the 2016 Report. A passenger alleged that while they were driving down a dark street Mr. Al Hussein “asked me if I trusted him.” The passenger claimed that he then asked “if I wanted to go to an apartment with him.”
The second complaint (known as the 2018 Report), made in December 2018, alleged that Mr. Al Hussein was “trying to hit on” a passenger. The passenger detailed how they initially chatted about cars, but then Mr. Al Huseein allegedly started saying “things that made me a bit uncomfortable.” The passenger claimed he told her that she was the “coolest girl I’ve ever met.” She told Uber that it would be good for drivers to avoid saying anything that “feels like a pick up tactic.”
The third passenger complaint (known as the 2019 Report), made in January 2019, alleged that Mr. Al Hussein had been “flirting” with her despite her requests to stop. The passenger claimed that he asked for a kiss at the end of the trip. She also noted that he accepted a $500 tip that the passenger said “I only gave because of how inebriated I was.”
In response to this, Rasier Pacific initiated a review into the latest complaint, suspending Mr. Al Hussein’s access to the Uber Driver app. It then issued him a formal warning. The company told him that if they received any more complaints of inappropriate behaviour, they will “review” his access to the Uber Driver app.
The final incident that led to Mr. Al Hussein’s Fair Work unfair deactivation claim began on 24 May 2025 (known as the 2025 Report). This was when Rasier Pacific received a request for information from the NSW Police. The next day, the company told Mr. Al Hussein that he was suspended from the Uber Driver app pending a review into one of his recent trips.
Rasier Pacific provided the Fair Work Commission the transcript of a conversation a member of its staff had with the person who had booked the Uber ride for the passenger who complained. The staff member told her that they had received a report about “non consensual kissing.”
The individual said that they called the passenger just as the trip was ending. But 30 minutes later, she texted her saying that “the guy had kissed her.” The individual also claimed that Ms Al Hussein created a “brand new” Instagram account to follow the passenger’s account.
Later that day, Uber’s community operations team called Mr. Al Hussein, telling him that they had received a report of unwanted sexual contact on his recent trip. He told them that he “would never, ever do such a thing.” The Uber team member asked Mr. Al Hussein if he has ever had any previous issues of a similar nature while driving for Uber. He responded by saying that he has dealt with a lot of “intoxicated people” and that there have never been any serious issues.
Mr. Al Hussein told the Uber staffer that he drove for the company full time and that he had three kids to support. He said he was “surprised” by the alleged sexual harassment. Minutes after this phone call, Uber messaged Mr. Al Hussein telling him that his account was at risk of deactivation. It said this was due to his multiple complaints of alleged sexual harassment. Mr. Al Hussein’s account was put on hold pending investigation.
Rasier Pacific gave Mr. Al Hussein the option of providing an explanation for the multiple complaints or to have discussion with a staff member. He chose the latter, but Rasier Pacific never initiated the discussion. This prompted Mr. Al Huseein to send Uber an email. He highlighted that he had been driving for the company for nine years. He argued that some passengers “might interpret things in a different way or misunderstand,” which leads to complaints.
He said that he had “experienced a lot” being an evening driver, noting that passengers are often drunk. Mr. Al Hussein maintained that he is always “professional” and that his comments can be “misinterpreted.” On 10 June 2025, Rasier Pacific sent Mr. Al Hussein a final deactivation notice. This stated that his access to the Uber Driver app had been terminated and that the decision was “final.”
The final deactivation notice referred only to “the reasons outlined in the preliminary deactivation notice.” The final notice had failed to mention the 2016 Report or the 2018 Report. It relied heavily on the 2025 Report, which alleged that Mr. Al Hussein had “hugged and kissed” the passenger.
In responding to Mr. Al Huseein’s Fair Work unfair deactivation claim, Rasier Pacific argued that he had engaged in serious misconduct. It relied on the pattern of behaviour established by the 2016, 2018 and 2019 reports. Rasier Pacific also claimed that Mr. Al Hussein had not requested a discussion with a representative following the preliminary deactivation notice.
It therefore argued that sections of the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code did not apply. The company also claimed that previous complaints about Mr. Al Hussein had been “validated” during conversations with the passengers.
Mr. Al Hussein represented himself during his Fair Work unfair deactivation claim proceedings. He denied the alleged conduct in the 2025 Report. His primary argument, however, focused on the lack of due process and fairness. He told the Fair Work Commission that he was not provided with sufficient details to be able to defend himself against the allegations. He admitted that he had sent a written response. But he said, “what’s the point of me writing back to you guys when I don’t have any clue of what’s going on?”
Mr. Al Hussein also raised concerns that he was unaware Uber was relying on the 2016 Report and the 2018 Report to support his unfair deactivation. He said that he had never been given an opportunity to respond to these allegations. He highlighted the financial impact of the deactivation. He said he lost $1,991.18 in average weekly earnings and had been reliant on Centrelink benefits.
Mr. Al Huseein’s unfair deactivation claim was heard by the Commission in October 2025. It said that it was “a stretch” to say that the 2016 and 2018 allegations involved sexual harassment. The Commission said that the 2016 Report was equivocal, as the passenger herself stated that she “could be mistaken” but “felt” that Mr. Al Hussein was “trying to hit on” her. It said that the historic allegations were “not of sufficient gravity” to justify deactivation in 2025.
This was particularly the case as Rasier Pacific had taken no action against Mr. Al Hussein at the time the allegations were made. It was noted that Rasier Pacific had issued only a warning following the 2019 Report, and therefore had no basis to revisit that outcome in 2025. Regarding the 2025 allegation, the Commission said that Rasier Pacific’s evidence could be characterised as “inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.”
None of these complaints were seen as a valid reason for Mr. Al Hussein’s deactivation.
The Fair Work Commission determined that Rasier Pacific had breached the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code by failing to make a representative available for a discussion. It rejected the company’s statement that Mr. Al Hussein had not requested a discussion, noting that he made three such requests. The deactivation process was also found to lack fairness because the allegations were put to Mr. Al Hussein “in the vaguest of terms.”
The Commission found it would have been fairer to put the allegation of “hugging and kissing” to him directly, rather than using terms like “unwanted sexual contact.” Given these findings, the Commission ruled that Mr. Al Hussein had experienced an unfair deactivation. It therefore ordered Rasier Pacific to reactivate his access to the Uber Driver app.
Read more: Unfair Deactivation or Termination: How to Make a Claim
If you’ve been unfairly deactivated by a platform, Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives (AWDR) is here to help you challenge the decision and get back to work. We understand how sudden deactivations can impact your income and reputation, and we provide guidance to help you navigate the dispute process with confidence.
Strict Fair Work deadlines apply for making a claim, so contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and private consultation.
