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:
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
© 2024 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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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