Isn't that a Title VII / EEOC violation? Woman-only gyms - like sex-segregated toilet facilities - operate "because of a compelling and overriding privacy issue". This can extend to woman-only requirements for employees at such businesses, since some states have made an exception for health and wellness centers.
These exceptions don't apply to taxis, that I can tell. For example, in LivingWell (North), Inc. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (1992), the courts defined a three-part test:
> A business must establish a factual basis for believing that not excluding members of one sex would undermine its business operation; that its customers’ privacy interests are entitled to protection under the law; and that no reasonable alternative exists to protect the customers’ privacy interests.
Taxis don't have a privacy interest. Plus, are there really no other reasonable alternatives?
1 comment
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 8.6 ms ] threadThese exceptions don't apply to taxis, that I can tell. For example, in LivingWell (North), Inc. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (1992), the courts defined a three-part test:
> A business must establish a factual basis for believing that not excluding members of one sex would undermine its business operation; that its customers’ privacy interests are entitled to protection under the law; and that no reasonable alternative exists to protect the customers’ privacy interests.
Taxis don't have a privacy interest. Plus, are there really no other reasonable alternatives?
(See http://download.ihrsa.org/gr/womenonly.pdf for some of the information about the the law allows sex-segregated gyms.)