There is a business due to launch called Chariots for Women. It is a ride-sharing service that employs only women as drivers and does not accept male passengers unless they are 13 or under. It was created by a (male) former Uber driver after he took a fare from a man who made him feel unsafe and evidently feels that women (but not men) need additional protection.
As a lawyer, this strikes me as about the most blatant violation of the federal Civil Rights Act as well as state anti-discrimination laws that I am familiar with. It denies both employment and service to people solely on the basis of their sex. And it is based upon the stereotype of men as violent and potential rapists. Even though men in the aggregate have higher rates of certain crimes than do women, this is no more reasonable than refusing to hire or accept fares from black people due to their statistically higher crime rates. That's pretty much the definition of bigotry - blaming a whole group of people for the actions of a few.
The arguments for legality seem very weak, claiming this is a bona fide occupational qualification. But, of course, there is nothing about driving that require one to be female. And beyond the sex of the drivers, it is still discrimination on the basis of sex in choosing the passengers.
Some argue this is like allowing women's-only health clubs. There has been litigation about that - courts in some states upheld it, some states specifically grant that by statute, but it is illegal in other states. But the argument was to protect women from privacy and embarrassment, considering it to be an intimate setting because women there are expending physical effort, sweaty, with things like grunting and contorted facial expressions. Personally, I find those arguments weak, but still it is very different from this situation as there are no privacy or embarrassment issues.
And there are people who claim it is like Hooters and similar restaurants employing only female waitstaff. Of course, feminist organizations have claimed for years that they violate civil rights laws by doing so. I happen to agree with them on that, as do most legal commentators who considered the issue. What happens is that these restaurants pay out to settle sex discrimination lawsuits and keep their practices going. Their argument is that these women are playing a role and that character entertainment is a bona fide occupational qualification, like a Hollywood role. A similar argument was rejected by a federal court regarding Southwest Airlines hiring only attractive women as flight attendants back in the 1970s (Wilson v. Southwestern Airlines Co.) and I believe the same reasoning would apply to those restaurants. But the drivers are not even arguably entertainment. And even if their argument passed muster, everybody acknowledges that Hooters would would blatantly violate civil rights laws if they refused to serve women.
This is not even going into the transgender issue, in localities where that is protected. Are they going by biological sex or gender identity? And how do they check that? Do they accept only male-to-female trans people? Only those who are taking hormone treatment or had surgery?
So I can't see any reasonable argument. Maybe if the company just posted the driver's sex and allowed passengers to pick the driver, that would be legal, as it would be the passengers who are discriminating, rather than the company. But I can't see how refusing male drivers and passengers could pass muster.
As a lawyer, this strikes me as about the most blatant violation of the federal Civil Rights Act as well as state anti-discrimination laws that I am familiar with. It denies both employment and service to people solely on the basis of their sex. And it is based upon the stereotype of men as violent and potential rapists. Even though men in the aggregate have higher rates of certain crimes than do women, this is no more reasonable than refusing to hire or accept fares from black people due to their statistically higher crime rates. That's pretty much the definition of bigotry - blaming a whole group of people for the actions of a few.
The arguments for legality seem very weak, claiming this is a bona fide occupational qualification. But, of course, there is nothing about driving that require one to be female. And beyond the sex of the drivers, it is still discrimination on the basis of sex in choosing the passengers.
Some argue this is like allowing women's-only health clubs. There has been litigation about that - courts in some states upheld it, some states specifically grant that by statute, but it is illegal in other states. But the argument was to protect women from privacy and embarrassment, considering it to be an intimate setting because women there are expending physical effort, sweaty, with things like grunting and contorted facial expressions. Personally, I find those arguments weak, but still it is very different from this situation as there are no privacy or embarrassment issues.
And there are people who claim it is like Hooters and similar restaurants employing only female waitstaff. Of course, feminist organizations have claimed for years that they violate civil rights laws by doing so. I happen to agree with them on that, as do most legal commentators who considered the issue. What happens is that these restaurants pay out to settle sex discrimination lawsuits and keep their practices going. Their argument is that these women are playing a role and that character entertainment is a bona fide occupational qualification, like a Hollywood role. A similar argument was rejected by a federal court regarding Southwest Airlines hiring only attractive women as flight attendants back in the 1970s (Wilson v. Southwestern Airlines Co.) and I believe the same reasoning would apply to those restaurants. But the drivers are not even arguably entertainment. And even if their argument passed muster, everybody acknowledges that Hooters would would blatantly violate civil rights laws if they refused to serve women.
This is not even going into the transgender issue, in localities where that is protected. Are they going by biological sex or gender identity? And how do they check that? Do they accept only male-to-female trans people? Only those who are taking hormone treatment or had surgery?
So I can't see any reasonable argument. Maybe if the company just posted the driver's sex and allowed passengers to pick the driver, that would be legal, as it would be the passengers who are discriminating, rather than the company. But I can't see how refusing male drivers and passengers could pass muster.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1MuSAR1
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire