Uber and Lyft Sued For Sex Discrimination

WASHINGTON - Nov. 8, 2025 - PRLog -- Uber and Lyft have both been sued because their programsdesigned to protect females and non-binaries unlawfully discriminated against male drivers.  But the programs also illegally discriminate against male passengers, notes public interest la professor John Banzhaf, ; ;

Here's what the activist law professor, who has won over 100 legal actions of sex discrimination against both males and females, wrote in July when Uber first launched it program.

The ride-sharing service Uber is about to launch which will permit women (but not men) to select drivers who are female (but not male).

It would also permit drivers who are women (but not men) to toggle on a "Women Rider Preference" (but not a "Men Rider Preference") to focus on picking up women passengers to the exclusion of male passengers likewise seeking rides.

But such a service appears to be illegal under both federal and California law . . .

The law professor also warns that permitting Uber to give only certain passengers and not others the ability to select drivers on a basis of one protected characteristic would open the door to rampant discrimination based upon race and many other characteristics . . .

Thus permitting businesses to openly advertise and implement a "Women Preferences Tool" would invite and open the door to similar preference tools permitting only Whites, straight people, Americans, Christians, etc, to discriminate against drivers who are Black or Asian, Jews or Muslims, homosexual or transgender, etc. . .

But mere preference for a illegal discriminatory policy, and even any apparent public acceptance of a discriminatory policy, do not override crystal clear statutes prohibiting sex discrimination.

One can only hope that California will be as forceful in attacking new Uber's policy which illegally discriminates on the basis of sex in at least four different ways:
■ against male passengers by denying them the privilege afforded female passengers of selecting drivers on the basis of the driver's sex,
■ against male drivers for a policy which permits and arguably encourages many passengers to discriminate against men by selecting female drivers,
■ against male passengers less likely be offered a ride when female drivers click on the "Women Rider Preference," and
■ against male drivers who are denied the similar privilege of clicking on "Women Rider Preference" or even a "Men Rider Preference,"
- as it was in the Tastries case (https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32...) for punishing a bakery for refusing to provide cakes for a same-sex wedding despite claims by the baker of constitutionally-freedom of expression and violation of religious beliefs, says Banzhaf.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf