Facebook Hit With Gender Bias Claims Over Ad Practices
“We can't let gender-based ad targeting online give new life to a form of discrimination that should have been eradicated long ago,” says Galen Sherwin, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Women's Rights Project.
September 18, 2018 at 09:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Facebook's advertising platforms unlawfully discriminate against women by enabling employers to target only men for job opportunities, civil rights advocates said Tuesday in claims filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The company's advertising practices have come under greater scrutiny for alleged violations of federal employment and housing laws. The new claims, brought against Facebook and 10 companies, focus on alleged gender discrimination. Excluding protected classes—based on age, race, sex, national origin and religion—raises potential civil rights liability.
The allegations, on behalf of three female workers, include claims that millions of women were denied information about job opportunities because of their gender. The ACLU, Outten & Golden and the Communications Workers of America filed charges with the EEOC, a necessary first step before any lawsuit.
“Sex segregated job advertising has historically been used to shut women out of well-paying jobs and economic opportunities,” Galen Sherwin, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, said in a statement. “We can't let gender-based ad targeting online give new life to a form of discrimination that should have been eradicated long ago.”
A Facebook spokesperson was not immediately reached for comment.
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
Outten & Golden attorneys and the Communication Workers of America have sued companies in California court over Facebook advertising that allegedly discriminates against older workers. Facebook is not a named defendant in that case.
Lawyers for the companies—including Amazon.com Inc., represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher—have filed court papers urging a judge to dismiss the claims.
Facebook last month announced it would remove 5,000 advertising targeting options “to help prevent misuse.”
“While these options have been used in legitimate ways to reach people interested in a certain product or service, we think minimizing the risk of abuse is more important. This includes limiting the ability for advertisers to exclude audiences that relate to attributes such as ethnicity or religion,” the company said in a statement. The changes did not limit advertising for age or sex.
The spotlight on Facebook's advertising platform reveals blurry lines in the modern age. Hundreds of millions of people use Facebook, and companies can target product messages, employment and other opportunities to specific groups of users. Facebook and other tech companies contend in many instances they are immune—through the federal Communications Decency Act—for the content posted by third parties.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recently brought an administrative housing discrimination complaint against Facebook. The company, according to the complaint, unlawfully discriminates “by enabling advertisers to restrict which Facebook users receive housing-related ads based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.”
HUD's complaint also noted that Facebook's ad targeting tools unlawfully allow advertisers “to discriminate based on sex by showing ads only to men or only to women.”
The civil rights advocates and lawyers for the workers are targeting Facebook as an employment agency.
“The internet did not erase our civil rights laws. It violates the law if an employer uses Facebook to deny job ads to women,” said Peter Romer-Friedman, an Outten & Golden counsel in Washington. “The last time I checked, you don't have to be a man to be a truck driver or a police officer. But Facebook and employers are acting like it's the 1950s, before federal employment law banned sex discrimination.”
Read more:
'Googleyness' Doesn't Disfavor Older Workers, Google's Lawyers Say
US Companies Resist Potential Class of Millions of Facebook Users in Labor Case
Plaintiffs Lawyers Hit Facebook Algorithm in Age-Bias Job Recruitment Suit
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit by New York Philharmonic Oboist Accused of Sexual Misconduct
- 2California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
- 3US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 4Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 5African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250