Please don't misunderstand the following comment to mean that I am defending Uber. I quit using Uber over a year ago when I first learned of some of their business practices.
>It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages.
These cases are tough to win, even in a liberal jurisdiction like SF. For example, does "Amy" have any witnesses that are willing to testify about what they saw? Sure, a subpoena can compel them to testify, but if the men who were present are still working there, how likely is it that they are going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under questioning?
The calculus becomes "keep my current job that is paying my bills, and maybe get a raise/promotion soon" vs. "stick my neck out for someone who no longer works here."
Sure, there are good lawyers who could maybe trip them up, but now you're treating what should be friendly or neutral witnesses as hostile witnesses. And Uber has some good lawyers too, obviously.
Further, even if some of these guys have moved on to other companies, they have to calculate how testifying in Amy's favor might come back to bite them later. With a guy like Travis who lacks good character (according to all the accounts I've read, anyway), it will come back to bite them sooner than later.
So "open-and-shut" is usually not really at all, but rather a less than 50% chance of recovering damages after years of difficult litigation. Unless, of course, you have lots of really good documentary evidence that's admissible.