Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

For those interested here is a link to The Code of Federal Regulations: Title 29 (Labor): Part 1604 “Guidelines On Discrimination Because of Sex” which describes the relevant legal requirements/interpretations pertaining to employer sex discrimination.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title29-vol4/xml/CFR-...



" § 1604.5 Job opportunities advertising.

It is a violation of title VII for a help-wanted advertisement to indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the particular job involved. The placement of an advertisement in columns classified by publishers on the basis of sex, such as columns headed “Male” or “Female,” will be considered an expression of a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on sex."

Seems to me like they're legally in the clear, as long as the ad itself doesn't contain any indication. Same as only advertising in a publication whose readers are 99% male - Google's gender metrics aren't even that precise.


Surely Facebook having an option to show only ads to a certain gender falls under the provision

The placement of an advertisement in columns classified by publishers on the basis of sex, such as columns headed “Male” or “Female,” will be considered an expression of a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on sex.

Facebook publishes the ad, and their target gender option surely falls in under "column classification".


This does imply the TSA are breaking the law given the story above about how they "strongly encourage" women to apply.


I'm sure there's a team of lawyers that pored over the exact language used and made sure it skirts the laws; they say "we strongly encourage", not "we prefer".


They're equivalent. People strongly encourage things they prefer. It would be a very Kafkaesque judgement that one can strongly encourage a certain gender to apply and not violate that statute.

Of course, it's also the outcome I'd expect, but biased application of the law is a separate issue.


I agree with the other person who replied. Couldn't they also say that they need women for pat downs of women, etc? So they have a legitimate reason for encouraging women to apply?




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: