4 ms·
> It just isn't legal to make decisions while employed based on whether or not you're a woman It is legal as a customer, and as an employee. It’s not as an emp
by dragonwriter 1y ago
> It just isn't legal to make decisions while employed based on whether or not you're a woman
It is legal as a customer, and as an employee. It’s not as an employer or a business offering a public accommodation in general, but even there there are some exceptions; whether this situation falls into them seems likely to get litigated.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- superkuh 1y agoAnd it'll apply to the employer here, Uber, just as soon as they start preferentially hiring female gender drivers because of the imbalanced demand (for specific gender drivers) created by this discriminatory policy.
- dragonwriter 1y agoUber is generally not legally the employer of drivers, and state and federal employment non-discrimination law generally applies only to actual employment, not independent contracting.
- int_19h 1y agoWeren't there some jurisdictions which decided that Uber drivers are de facto employees even if Uber would prefer to treat them as contractors?
- dragonwriter 1y agoCalifornia had a court decision which would have done that generally, so they sponsored a ballot measure that excepted them, in exchange for other regulations. I'm not aware of any US jurisdictions where they haven't managed to avoid employer designation as a general rule. But I know there are some wrinkles like workers comp disputes where individual drivers were found to be employees for workers comp purposes.
- zahlman 1y ago> It is legal as a customer, and as an employee. I am pretty sure that, for example, an American employee at a fast-food place working alone late at night would not be allowed to discriminate against customers in this manner.