Is Chariot for Women Legal? The Case of Wilson v. Southwest Airlines

The ride-share business has a new entrant, Chariot for Women. The business utilizes only women drivers and only women can be passengers. Ironically, the business was started by a male driver for Uber.

Is this legal? First, the employment piece. Chariot can argue that it has no employees as drivers—only independent contractors. I take strong exception to this line of reasoning—and this business model— in my paper, Michael H. LeRoy, “Bare Minimum: Stripping Pay for Independent Contractors in the Share Economy,” William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, Vol. 23, No. 2 (2017). 

If drivers are properly classified as employees, Chariot will have great difficulty justifying the female-only employee business model. Years ago, men sued Southwest Airlines over a female-only flight attendant policy that emphasized “love” in flight and the allure of attractive female flight attendants for a mostly male clientele. A federal court reasoned that Southwest is in the business of providing transportation, not erotic appeal to male customers. By that same reasoning—which many other courts have adopted— Chariot is also in the business of providing transportation. Chariot will lose the argument that customers prefer women drivers because customer preference is not allowed as a justification for discrimination. (If one has a problem with this, consider the implications of Chariots for Whites based on a racial preference by customers.)

Next, there is the female-customer part of the business model. With all the controversy directed at businesses and states that religiously discriminate against transgender bias, this seems to be an ill-timed business launch. At bottom, the business is highly suspect because it assumes that men and women cannot safely and securely share a ride. Here’s hoping that the wheels fall off this chariot soon.