A man arrested for allegedly throwing bottles at federal agents and brandishing a fake weapon during a protest is simultaneously employed by Uber Eats and the State of California’s Department of Transportation (Caltrans), according to statements made in federal court this week. The case raises questions about background check procedures for gig economy platforms and state employment, particularly concerning individuals with prior misdemeanor convictions.
Peter Escalante Hernandez appeared in federal court on Tuesday, , where his attorney, Jaya Gupta, revealed his employment status. Hernandez is accused of assaulting federal agents and brandishing what was later determined to be a non-functional firearm during an altercation following his arrest. He was ordered to remain detained by Federal Judge Mircheff, who cited concerns that Hernandez “doesn’t follow instructions” and “presents a danger.”
The incident stems from a protest where Hernandez allegedly threw bottles at federal agents before displaying the fake weapon as they attempted to apprehend him. Prosecutors have indicated Hernandez has been arrested for eight misdemeanor offenses in the past nine months. Gupta argued in court that Hernandez was exercising his First Amendment rights to protest.
Uber Eats, like many gig economy companies, requires background checks for prospective drivers. According to the company’s website, “Certain criminal convictions may result in disqualification regardless of when they occurred. Pending charges may also be disqualifying, unless and until they are resolved in your favor.” The specifics of how Uber’s background check process flagged or did not flag Hernandez’s prior misdemeanor arrests remain unclear, as requests for comment from Uber Eats went unanswered.
The situation is further complicated by Hernandez’s concurrent employment with Caltrans, the California state agency responsible for managing the state’s highway and freeway system. Caltrans’s stated policy regarding prior convictions is notably different from Uber’s. According to their website, “Prior conviction of a misdemeanor or felony does not limit your ability to apply or work for Caltrans. This information does not need to be disclosed at any time during the hiring process.” This policy suggests a significantly more lenient approach to considering criminal history when hiring.
The discrepancy between the two employers’ policies highlights a broader debate about the role of criminal background checks in employment. While companies like Uber Eats often prioritize public safety and risk mitigation through stringent checks, government agencies like Caltrans may prioritize providing employment opportunities, even to individuals with past legal issues. This difference in approach reflects differing priorities and risk tolerances.
The case also touches on the increasing prevalence of individuals holding multiple jobs, particularly in the gig economy. Hernandez’s employment with both Uber Eats and Caltrans demonstrates a reliance on multiple income streams, a trend driven by factors such as rising living costs and the flexibility offered by gig work. This multi-employment model can make it more challenging for employers to gain a comprehensive understanding of an individual’s overall work history and potential risks.
The details surrounding the alleged fake weapon are also noteworthy. While the object was ultimately determined to be non-functional, its presentation to federal agents escalated the situation and contributed to Hernandez’s arrest. The incident underscores the potential for misinterpretation and heightened tensions during protests, particularly when individuals are carrying items that could be perceived as weapons.
Hernandez, described as covered in tattoos and wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the word “Family,” is the father of four minor children under the age of seven. His arraignment is scheduled for . The outcome of the case could have significant implications for both Hernandez and the broader debate surrounding background checks, employment opportunities for individuals with criminal records, and the handling of protests involving federal agents.
The incident is not isolated. Recent events, including a shooting involving ICE agents in Portland, Oregon, , and federal charges against anti-ICE protesters in Chicago, demonstrate a pattern of escalating tensions between law enforcement and individuals involved in demonstrations. Five anti-ICE protesters faced federal charges in Chicago following a protest in , with one individual accused of threatening Border Patrol officers.
The Inflation Reduction Act and Prescription Drug Pricing
