5 ms·

This is a more substantive question but there's a lot of evidence it's not a problem. According to your article, eHarmony was sued in 2008, created the "separat

This is a more substantive question but there's a lot of evidence it's not a problem. According to your article, eHarmony was sued in 2008, created the "separate but equal" site, and then merged them in 2012 after more complaints. However, 3 years later, they still have separate portals for people interested in dating specific people: http://www.eharmony.com/asian-dating/ http://www.eharmony.com/asian-dating/ http://www.eharmony.com/black-dating/ http://www.eharmony.com/black-dating/ http://www.eharmony.com/r/christian-dating-1/ http://www.eharmony.com/r/christian-dating-1/ etc. More analysis of the general right of association in light of private groups setting rules for membership is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#cite_note-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membersh...

defen 11y ago
Those portals are nominally for finding someone else of that race/religion - they don't prevent you from signing up if you're not a member of the group (I checked). That is the part that seems like it might not fly under California law - Jopwell is a business; so I don't see how they can legally deny accommodations based on race. I don't think the issue is with a company using Jopwell to find candidates, but rather with Jopwell telling white people that they are denied service due to race. If you think that is OK, I don't see how you could be against a recruiting company that always rejected nonwhite candidates for placement (but didn't have that as part of their explicit mission).
- NateLawson 11y ago
  I think this is a fair question, and I'm sure they'll address it in whatever way is necessary. As a startup, it's best to have a focus, otherwise you're just another generic recruiter. It's possible that they'll need to tweak how they express that focus in terms of site design and onboarding process. I mean, if a site as big as eHarmony had to change their approach, it's quite likely a startup will run into similar issues. (I haven't tried signing up with Jopwell to see how they implemented the workflow, so I have no idea what it says currently.) Thank you for the meaningful conversation.

defen 11y ago

Those portals are nominally for finding someone else of that race/religion - they don't prevent you from signing up if you're not a member of the group (I checked). That is the part that seems like it might not fly under California law - Jopwell is a business; so I don't see how they can legally deny accommodations based on race. I don't think the issue is with a company using Jopwell to find candidates, but rather with Jopwell telling white people that they are denied service due to race. If you think that is OK, I don't see how you could be against a recruiting company that always rejected nonwhite candidates for placement (but didn't have that as part of their explicit mission).

NateLawson 11y ago
I think this is a fair question, and I'm sure they'll address it in whatever way is necessary. As a startup, it's best to have a focus, otherwise you're just another generic recruiter. It's possible that they'll need to tweak how they express that focus in terms of site design and onboarding process. I mean, if a site as big as eHarmony had to change their approach, it's quite likely a startup will run into similar issues. (I haven't tried signing up with Jopwell to see how they implemented the workflow, so I have no idea what it says currently.) Thank you for the meaningful conversation.