In today’s news and commentary, Uber and Lyft face class actions against “women preference” matching, Virginia home healthcare workers push for a collective bargaining bill, and the NLRB launches a new intake protocol. 

In California, two groups of male rideshare drivers have filed class actions arguing that Uber’s “Women Preferences” feature and Lyft’s “Women+ Connect” program perpetuate gender discrimination. Both programs make it easier for women and nonbinary riders to connect with women and nonbinary drivers, and vice versa. Uber first launched its Women Preferences feature in the United States in July 2025 (the feature had previously been active in other countries, after starting in Saudi Arabia), while Lyft’s program began in September 2023. The preferences are meant to improve safety for both riders and drivers. When Lyft launched Women+ Connect, it noted that only 23% of its drivers were women; Uber pointed to a similar statistic. Uber’s implementation of Women Preferences also comes amid increased scrutiny of a “festering” sexual assault problem that has led to ballot initiatives, Congressional and state investigations, and over 3,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts.

Although litigants in these cases have argued that Uber was negligent for failing to implement a Women Preferences program earlier, the male drivers in both class actions argue that the features limit their income and opportunities on the basis of sex—in violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Proposition 22, a California ballot initiative that passed in 2020, gave drivers an anti-bias remedy under the Unruh Act although it denied them coverage under other workplace anti-discrimination laws by classifying them as contractors. Both complaints allege that Uber’s assumption that male drivers with “stellar ratings” are nonetheless unsafe amounts to harmful sex stereotyping. To prevail under California’s civil rights law, the rideshare companies must show that the programs constitute the “least restrictive” means to improve safety for female passengers and drivers. The cases are Almond v. Uber Technologies and Kennedy v. Lyft.

In Virginia, home healthcare workers and the SEIU are advocating for a collective bargaining bill once more. A previous version of the bill passed the legislature last year, but was vetoed by then-Governor Glenn Youngkin. The current bill, HB 1263, would repeal the existing ban on collective bargaining for public employees, create a Public Employee Relations Board to oversee the bargaining process, and create the Virginia Home Care Authority to act as the public employer of home healthcare workers for bargaining purposes. Advocates of the bill are hopeful that new Governor Abigail Spanberger, who campaigned on affordability issues, might support expanding collective bargaining based on that platform. Virginia last loosened restrictions on collective bargaining in 2020, when it allowed local government workers to unionize. 

Meanwhile, the NLRB has implemented a new system to address new unfair labor practice charges as it struggles to to deal with a backlog of cases. Under the new protocol, the charging party must submit supporting documentation within two weeks in order for the case to be assigned to an agent for investigation. Otherwise, the agency may discard the charge for “noncooperation.” Only once substantiating documents are submitted does a particular charge get assigned when a board agent is available. Commentators worry that workers will have difficulties submitting evidence within the required timeframe.