On November 3, 2025, two nearly identical class action lawsuits were filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, targeting the ridesharing giants Uber and Lyft for alleged sex-based discrimination against male drivers through preferential matching programs designed to prioritize female and nonbinary drivers for certain passengers.

In the case of Almond and Ruud v. Uber Technologies, Inc., plaintiffs Andre Almond and Hans Ruud – both allegedly highly rated, long-term male independent contractors who have driven for Uber in California for over seven and ten years, respectively – accuse Uber of unlawfully implementing its “Women Preferences” program on August 13, 2025, in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

This initiative, which Uber had piloted globally since 2019 in over 40 countries and completed more than 100 million sex-segregated rides, allows female riders to request female drivers via in-app settings, effectively reserving access to roughly half the passenger pool (female riders) for the 20% of drivers who are women.

Male drivers like the plaintiffs, who represent about 80% of Uber’s workforce and allegedly have spotless safety records with female passengers, are systematically excluded from these matches, resulting in lost income, fewer ride opportunities, reputational harm from implied unsafety stereotypes, and strained rider relationships.

Despite alleged internal memos from 2022 highlighting “significant legal risk” under U.S. anti-discrimination laws – and delays in domestic rollout due to counsel’s warnings – Uber proceeded, promoting the feature for “safety and confidence.”

The suit claims this violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which broadly prohibits arbitrary sex discrimination in business establishments and entitles victims to at least $4,000 in statutory damages per violation. It is seeking class certification for over 80,000 affected male California drivers, the plaintiffs demand declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the program, plus actual, punitive, and compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial.

Also on November 3, the same lawfirm filed Kennedy v. Lyft, Inc.- which brings forth plaintiffs William Kennedy and Louie Alatorre – fellow veteran male Lyft drivers from Los Angeles County allegedly with over eight years of service, thousands of five-star rides, and no incidents involving female passengers. They charge Lyft with perpetuating similar bias via its “Women+ Connect” program, launched nationwide on September 11, 2023, and expanded to over 240 markets by 2025.

According to the information on the Lyft website “Women+ Connect puts women and nonbinary people in the driver’s seat – literally – by letting them choose to match with more women and nonbinary riders. The feature offers the option to turn on a preference in the Lyft app to prioritize matches with other nearby women and nonbinary riders. If no women or nonbinary riders are nearby, drivers with the preference on will still be matched with men as Women+ Connect is a preference feature, not a guarantee.”

These plaintiffs allege Lyft “has facilitated “millions” of such sex-based assignments, openly advertising the tool for enhanced “comfort” and “peace of mind” despite knowing it disadvantages the 77% male driver majority.”

The Lyft case is proposing a class of hundreds of thousands of impacted male California drivers (potentially over 80,000), they seek the same sweeping remedies: program termination through injunctions, statutory damages starting at $4,000 per violation, disgorgement of profits, punitive awards, interest, costs, and a jury trial.

Uber/Lyft Sued for Passenger Gender Preference Programs