Advertising to a specific demographic? Not illegal.

If Uber discriminates in hiring, then yes, they would be in trouble. Nothing in this article indicates that.

Article discussing it: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649158898/facebook-allowed-employers-to-exclude-women-from-job-ads-aclu-says

Actual complaint filed: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/facebook-eeoc-complaint-charge-discrimination?redirect=legal-document/facebook-eeoc-complaint-facebook

your advertising so that it effectively discriminates against that class and you end up in the end hiring
members of the protected class in numbers significantly below what you should (based on percentage of
the population) you may have an EEOC problem. So sure you can place job ads target towards men,
but you are also responsible to make an effort to find and hire qualified women for your job openings too.

Or vice-versa? How about advertising in People?

Of course not, that'd be stupid.

Employers are under no legal obligation to maintain a diverse set of candidates, or even employees. The limitations are on hiring.

Think about the implications of what you're suggesting. Super bowl ad? Well fuck, the audience is majority men. Call the law office, immediately Helen, you're getting PAID!

I think the policy of allowing only men to see an ad is more akin to saying “men come work for Uber!” Which would be violation even if you followed up with an eeoc disclaimer and didn’t discriminate.

See if the case in the op runs afoul of any restricted (by law) practices designated on the eeoc website.

I mean, if you can’t rely on a “word of mouth” recruitment practice that only generates candidates of certain ethnic backgrounds, how the hell would specifically barring women from reading your ads be legal? And this is way beyond choosing an advertising media based on “demographics” (which may even be a violation if its intent is, or results in, discriminatory practices)

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/

C'mon, I want you on the record

Did you read the link I provided? I suspect you didn’t. Or you maybe think eeoc laws are a bunch of liberal nanny state laws? How bout you go on the record. I mean it was right there in black and white.

If it was done to only hire white males? Yes. The trick is to prove it. Sometimes it takes an insider to blow the whistle.

Or in this case, a paper trail that makes it painfully obvious the intent was to exclude female candidates.

Nice equivocation though. Maybe, possibly, under the full moon.. with the stars in alignment...

If it was done to only hire white males? Yes.

A violation can take place well before anyone is hired.

What about the ad discourages anyone not targeted from applying? Does the ad say, 'no men'? Does the ad say that you have to sign with your penis?

Funny, that.

The “free market will take care of it” is a joke!

This is nothing new, it's an ad. The employer placing the ad is not saying they only want to hire men, they may be indicating it through their targeting preference but that's their problem and they should have to answer for that.

This is not Facebook's problem. If for some reason an employer wanted to send a postcard out advertising a job and they chose to only send it to households with single men nobody would be screaming about USPS doing something bad. It's called targeted advertising for a reason and it's nothing new in the digital age.

Advertisers don't want to target men with with ads for women's health care products, or advertise jock itch powder to women. So the option to target gender does exist. Incontinence product ads would be wasted on 20 year olds. As would jet ski ads on 80 year olds. As long as we allow hyper specific advertising, these issues will be out there.

Should these options be allowed for other things? Who gets to decide what can and can not be targeted to a gender, age range, education, etc.? Can anyone seeing the right agreeing to more regulations on anything?

....Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity via HUD,when it comes to targeted advertising for housing.

You can’t intentionally target advertising to steer away from a protected class or familial status. You can also be in violation if you do it unintentionally.

I was watching Ari yesterday and actually saw an Uber commercial on TV for the first time (don't watch TV much if at all except a few times a month if there is big news story going on).

what about the pizza chain that sends a coupon to the 10,000 homes closest to the location...is that fair to the family outside the selected area?

if a pet store sends a mailer to all the dog owners in town but excludes cat owners....is that fair?

understand we are talking employment here.
would assume that as long as you treat everyone who fills out an app the same does it matter how someone found out about the job?

Marketing

They did advertising for inside Catholic church service programs ...
There were also Catholic and Jewish newspapers.. all target a specific audience based solely on religion

is that gender discrimination? The overwhelming majority of those seeing the ads will be women, just as the overwhelming majority of those seeing the above-mentioned ads on Facebook would be men.

Please note - I am not defending Facebook, just a little confused by the implication that this is either illegal on the part of Facebook or even on the companies placing the ads. I have used Facebook ads a handful of times for my business and I can see how/why this is happening, and I am pretty sure there are rarely humans doing thorough reviews of ads before they go live.

I guess my questions are:

--Isn't legality more a question of the actual hiring practices among those who apply rather than the job-posting blast?

--If this type of ad placement is illegal, is it the responsibility of Facebook, or of the companies placing the ads? And how far do we go - if people advertise in magazines, what if the demographics are incredibly skewed to one gender or another, as in my earlier example of Woman's Day, or if it were GQ or Maxim (is that still in print? LOL)... And is the magazine at fault? Should they keep employment lawyers on retainer to review the ads? Or just the companies who place the ads?

AFAIC Facebook can fuck right off, so let me reiterate that I am not defending them. I will say that for a tiny local bricks and mortar business, the ads on FB are cheap and effective, but I mostly only pay to boost a post when I have a message I want our existing followers to see rather than to try to find new people or to sell something or whatever. I've never placed ads on Facebook for hiring (or anywhere else - we are a mom-and-pop almost literally).

But this does have me thinking, in part because some day I might be able to afford to hire somebody and I've thought about this stuff in terms of age discrimination and how to make sure the word gets out to a wide swath of the community if/when we post a job listing somewhere....

on your final hiring results. If you are targeting your job ads to men and ultimately are hiring 75% men and 25% women
for your job openings you may have an EEOC problem.

Employers may not discriminate in hiring based on membership in a protected class.

(including how and where you advertise for applicants) is to discriminate against a protected class
you can be found in violation of the law. The EEOC website discusses this and gives examples.