By Gina Hill | Alaska Headline Living | November 2025
Safety concerns for women in rideshares have taken center stage in a new wave of lawsuits targeting Uber and Lyft. Male drivers in California are suing the companies over “women preference” ride-matching features, claiming the programs discriminate against men, reduce their income, and reinforce stereotypes that men are inherently dangerous.
The legal battle, filed under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, is unfolding amid national data that underscores why these features were introduced and raises questions about whether male drivers are truly harmed economically.
Violence Against Women: The Data Behind the Safety Push
Statistics show that women face disproportionate risks from male perpetrators, both in private and public settings:
| Category | Statistic / Source |
|---|---|
| Homicide offenders who are male | 90%+ (FBI/BJS) |
| Female homicide victims killed by current/former intimate partner | >50% (CDC NVDRS) |
| Female homicide victims killed by strangers | Less common; overwhelmingly male offenders when it occurs (CDC/NVDRS) |
| Serious assaults & sexual assaults | Predominantly committed by men (BJS/FBI) |
| Rideshare incidents reported | Hundreds of sexual assaults annually reported by Uber & Lyft (company transparency reports) |
These figures highlight the safety concerns driving Uber and Lyft’s gender-preference programs. Women are disproportionately at risk, and the features are intended to give them greater comfort and control.
Earnings Reality: Do Men Actually Lose Out?
Despite male drivers’ claims of lost income, publicly available data do not show that men are being financially harmed by women-only or women-preference matching features. In fact, studies show that male drivers earn about 7% more per hour than female drivers on average.
- A 2018 large-scale study of Uber drivers across 200 U.S. cities found men consistently earned more than women. The gap is largely attributed to differences in driving patterns, choice of hours, and locations, not discriminatory ride assignments.
- Some of these differences are themselves shaped by safety concerns: female drivers tend to avoid certain neighborhoods or late-night shifts due to personal safety risks, which in turn can affect earnings.
While the lawsuits argue that gender-preference matching diverts rides from men, there is no publicly available empirical evidence quantifying lost income for male drivers since the rollout of these features in 2023–2025. The claims remain allegations within the legal filings.
The Legal Claims: Male Drivers Take a Stand
The lawsuits, Almond v. Uber and Kennedy v. Lyft, allege the companies’ gender-preference features violate California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Male plaintiffs say these programs divert ride requests away from men and financially harm full-time drivers in urban markets.
The Uber complaint contends that the “Women Rider Preference” program brands male drivers as inherently dangerous. The Lyft complaint argues that Women+ Connect “creates and enforces a system of gender segregation” that disadvantages men. Both lawsuits seek class certification and statutory damages of $4,000 per violation.
Rideshare Companies’ Perspective: Safety and Choice
Lyft’s Women+ Connect, introduced nationally in 2023, allows women and nonbinary riders to opt for women or nonbinary drivers. Lyft says the feature enhances rider comfort and provides women drivers with additional flexibility. Uber’s Women Rider Preference operates similarly, introduced gradually to U.S. markets after years of sexual-assault complaints.
Both companies stress that male drivers are not blocked from rides entirely, and that the preferences are opt-in, not mandatory. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs contend that the features create a tangible reduction in ride opportunities and income for male drivers, a claim not yet backed by verified data.
The Debate: Safety vs. Discrimination
Supporters of the programs argue that women face unique safety risks in rideshares and deserve the ability to choose a driver’s gender. Male plaintiffs counter that the features codify stereotypes about male danger and divert income unjustly.
The statistics above show that the companies’ safety concerns are grounded in real patterns of male-perpetrated violence. Meanwhile, the earnings data indicate that men on average still make more than women, highlighting a key tension: the lawsuit addresses potential perceived or future harm rather than documented income loss.
Timeline: How Assault Allegations Shaped Policy
- 2014–2016: Women report assaults by rideshare drivers; lawsuits and media coverage grow.
- 2017: First major wave of public lawsuits alleges insufficient safety measures.
- 2018: Congressional scrutiny of rideshare safety; investigations highlight rising assaults.
- 2019: Uber reports 3,000+ sexual assaults in two years; public outcry pushes reforms.
- 2020–2021: Rider surveys and advocacy groups push for women-only ride options.
- 2022: Pilot programs begin quietly in select markets.
- 2023: Lyft launches Women+ Connect nationally; Uber expands U.S. pilot programs.
- Fall 2025: Male drivers file class-action lawsuits claiming discrimination under the Unruh Act.
Where the Legal Fight May Land
Legal experts note the cases will test California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in public accommodations unless a narrow exemption applies. Single-sex services are allowed in limited contexts such as locker rooms or shelters—but it remains unclear whether rideshare matching falls under any legal carve-out.
The central question: Can companies implement gender-based safety features based on documented risk patterns without unlawfully discriminating against men?
For now, the lawsuits proceed, highlighting the tension between rider safety, public scrutiny, and economic opportunity for drivers.
