[lordfrito]

Sex is a protected class under Title VII of the civil rights act. And the supreme court recently said that even majority classes (men) are protected by this. Since Uber involved in the decision to send more business to female drivers than male drivers, this would seem to me to run afoul of employment discrimination (sorry we don't need as many men workers today, too many of you competing so market forces mean we're going to pay you less, etc).

Can someone explain to me how this is (or isn't) legal under Title VII?

It seems if this is fully legal because it's the customer making the decision, then pretty much any form of "in app" discrimination is legal as long as it's the customer doing the discrimination. How long till "I don't want a black/white/gay/etc driver" options show up?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." — George Orwell, Animal Farm

[paxys]

Is it illegal to set a filter for a female gynecologist over a male one? Or a male gym trainer over a female one? Or a massage service, hostel, sports team? Is it illegal to set a gender preference on a dating app? Is it illegal to issue a casting call for a female actor or model?

This kind of "discrimination" is a part of society, and has been tested in courts plenty of times.

[akramachamarei]

I don't think you need scare quotes, this is discrimination. Discrimination isn't always bad. IANAL but it seems like these are cases where we just kinda ignore some laws, and society usually goes okay despite and in spite of it. Just my uneducated impression.

Could you link to some cases where this kind of thing has been tested? I have an amateur interest in law and this issue is puzzling to me. It's not at all clear to me why it's okay to discriminate against Uber drivers based on the genitals they are born with, but not e.g. their skin color or religion.

[robhlt]

The legal standard that must be met for this kind of discrimination is called "Bona fide occupational qualification" [1]

Generally customer demand is not enough use this defense. Airlines tried using it to defend hiring only female flight attendants and lost.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...

[lordfrito]

Interesting, the Wikipedia article has this to say

Mere customer satisfaction, or lack thereof, is not enough to justify a BFOQ defense, as noted in the cases Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. and Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co. Therefore, customer preference for females does not make femininity a BFOQ for the occupation of flight attendant. However, there may be cases in which customer preference is a BFOQ – for example, femininity is reasonably necessary for Playboy Bunnies. Several breastaurants like Hooters have also used such requirements of femininity and female sex appeal under a BFOQ defense. Customer preference can "'be taken into account only when it is based on the company's inability to perform the primary function or service it offers,' that is, where sex or sex appeal is itself the dominant service provided."

So basically the question to ask it "Is it a bona fide occupational qualification that the driver be female?" Seems like a high standard to reach. Arguments based on "feels" as in "I don't feel safe around this kind of person/employee" seem like the very kind of discrimination that the law has tried hard to eliminate. It's pre-judging someone based on sex, and deciding that they aren't safe even though they haven't done anything. I understand that women are often harassed, but the law already has a process for dealing with harassment.

I predict this kind of thing (apps that allow customers to discriminate on the basis of protected class) will spread and eventually be challenged in court. Curious how this will all play out and become settled law.

[tpm]

> I understand that women are often harassed, but the law already has a process for dealing with harassment.

And that would be a good argument if we could see that the process really is used and trusted. Do we? What I see is the opposite; the ubers and bolts of this world only care as much they have to. So what is probably happening is that uber calculates this will be cheaper than dealing with the consequences of women losing trust and stopping using their services. If this is banned by the courts, they will move on to the next cheapest solution and so on.

What would interest me is, what would be a proper solution to this issue? Apart from Waymo, probably a surveillance/recording of all the interactions between the customer and the driver?

[lordfrito]

It's not illegal to do business with whom you want to (freedom of association etc)... but if my business provides you with tools to systematically avoid a protected class (say, black businesses) then my business might not be legal.

[traderj0e]

Isn't there a way for Uber to do this in a way that doesn't give preferential treatment to female drivers, even if higher demand/supply? One of:

1. Force the same market rate for female-only vs regular mode. This means a shortage of female drivers and higher wait times for users in that mode, but anyone who really wants it can use it.

2. Charge more for female-only mode to account for the lower supply, but pay the driver the same rate either way.

[Gunax]

I am not sure about the legal implications. But, I do see the concern.

Someone else mentioned the analogy of patients preferring physicians of a given sex.

I would not be surprised if they find a way around this by just having riders 'select which driver you want'. Effectively putting the onus on the customer to do the discrimination.

[tpm]

Are Uber drivers employed by Uber?

[lordfrito]

Law is in flux.. Employee or contractor, it's basically not settled law yet.

[thrance]

> How long till "I don't want a black/white/gay/etc driver" options show up?

Slippery slope fallacy.

> "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." — George Orwell, Animal Farm

Women being harassed by Uber drivers isn't a necessary part of life, and wanting to address this issue isn't equivalent to literal Soviet communism. This quote is waaay out of place.

[ottah]

Playing devil's advocate, but can you justify discriminating against an entire class of people, because of the actions of a subset? Part of the reason for protected classes is not to be reduced as an individual to the perception of the group.

[traderj0e]

It's really not a long slope when you look at how racial discrimination already happens, and the differing crime rates there

[ottah]

I'd say that history has already established that this discrimination is likely as it has already occurred before.