Is It Illegal To Charge Different Prices For The Same Service

Gender-based cost discrimination is a class of economic discrimination that occurs when ane gender is charged a different price than another gender for identical appurtenances or services. Race and class-based price discrimination also exists.^[1] Acts of discrimination oftentimes accept legal ramifications, but a study of gender-based price discrimination first looks at gendered price disparities. From there, the question of whether gendered price disparities evidence an intent to discriminate or constitute illegal bigotry can go a legal inquiry that is developed by examining the law of the applicable jurisdiction.^[2] Gender-based price discrimination is typically disapproved of, simply not universally. In the United States, a few states take adopted statutes forbidding gender-based price discrimination, simply these policies are largely unenforced.^[3]

Typically, toll disparities negatively affect women more ofttimes than men. For example, a study by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection found that, on boilerplate, women's products cost vii percent more than than similar products for men.^[4] Gender-based pricing exists in many industries, including insurance, dry out cleaning, hairdressing, nightclubs, clothing, and personal care products. The legality of gender-based price discrimination in matching markets has been of argue in the United States and Eu since the 1990s. The debate is centered around whether gender-based pricing is a class of gender discrimination. In other words, instead of prices being based on a market place-based analysis of the effects on competition, gender-based pricing may instead reinforce negative stereotypes virtually both women and men in matching markets.^[5]

Gender-based cost disparities have been found in personal care products, retail sales, and consumer service prices. They likewise exist in the pricing of insurance, such as health insurance and car insurance.^[1] Other studies suggest that gender-based price disparities oftentimes occur when negotiating and purchasing new cars.^[ii] ^[6] ^[7]

Disbelieve prices based on gender may also be a blazon of gender-based price discrimination. A common gender-based price discount is a "ladies' night" promotion, in which female person patrons pay less for alcoholic drinks or a lower comprehend charge than male person patrons do.^[5] ^[viii]

Consumption taxes on certain products simply non others have also been viewed a class of gender-based price disparity. For case, in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, tampons are often subjected to a consumption tax, while related products such as condoms, lubricant, and several other medical items are exempt from the taxation.^[ix] ^[10] ^[xi]

Opponents of the enforcement of laws against gender-based pricing make two arguments. They suggest that courts should dismiss cases involving gender-based pricing because the injury to the plaintiff is and then inconsequential that they should not be entitled to relief. They also point to economic efficiency as a justification.^[8] In response to the economic efficiency argument, scholars suggest that gender-based pricing should be prohibited on moral grounds, stating that gender should not be used as a proxy for other characteristics, especially when based on stereotypes.^[8] ^[12]

Gendered price disparities [edit]

Gender research has heavily focused on the interaction between gender and the economy. Typically, enquiry in this area involves the issue of the gender pay gap. Another aspect of gender research in economics is the less studied issue of gender-based price disparities in the cost of appurtenances and services beyond different industries. Scholars propose that the existence of gendered toll disparities contribute to gender inequality past creating an economic burden that does non exist for the other gender and past reinforcing gender roles in the marketplace.^[one]

Personal care industry [edit]

There are a number of different studies on the price disparities between personal care products and services that are marketed towards females and males. For example, the New York City Section of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCA) conducted a study of prices of appurtenances in New York City across v industries, including personal care products.^[4] Other universities and academics have also studied the prices in personal care products and services.^[ane] However, information technology is likewise argued that if there is no bulwark or prohibition to the consumer ownership the cheaper production, the consumer must notice added value in the more than expensive production and thus there is no existent bigotry.

Personal intendance services [edit]

While studies have shown significant cost disparities in personal care products between men and women, gendered price disparities across personal intendance services has been inconsistent.^[1] A recent study titled Toll of Doing Femininity examined two areas of personal care services that had direct comparable prices between men and women: pilus salons and dry out cleaners. The study found that only 15 out of 100 randomly selected hair salons had the same prices for both men and women, and none of the salons charged women less than men. Dry out cleaning prices depended on the type and amount of fabric, with more embellishments corresponding with higher prices. This price cistron, however, tended to negatively bear upon women more oftentimes than men considering women'due south garments are more probable to be embroidered or be made of frail textile.

Personal care products [edit]

Gendered price disparities in personal care products are more than apparent than in personal intendance services and across other industries. More often than not, the cost disparities in personal care products are notably college than in other industries and cost women around 13 percent more than men. This disparity is peculiarly meaning considering women purchase these products more regularly than men.^[4] ^[13] ^[xiv] Prices for pilus products, followed by razors, price the most for women - typically costing women virtually l percent more than than men.^[4]

Hair intendance manufacture [edit]

Price disparities in pilus salon services between men and women are thought to be justifiable considering women's hair is oft longer and more complicated to maintain and cut. In contempo years, however, this stereotype has changed. Men are often experimenting with their pilus, including hair loss handling and pilus color. While women may all the same spend a considerable amount for hair color and other treatments, many women prefer basic haircuts. Additionally, salon-quality hair styling tools are readily bachelor and piece of cake to use at home.^[15]

Gendered price disparities for pilus salon services have also been documented in unlike locations across the U.s. and Europe. The California Assembly Role of Enquiry conducted a survey of five big California cities and constitute that forty percent of the hair salons charged women, on average, five dollars more than men for a standard haircut.^[16] Gendered cost disparities in haircut prices as well has been establish in New York City: Of 199 hair salons examined, nearly 48 percent of pilus-cutters charged women more than than men for a simple haircut.^[1]

Vehicle insurance [edit]

The price disparities between men and women in the vehicle insurance market is ane of the few instances where men typically pay more women for identical products and services. Dissimilar in the markets for retail or personal intendance products, however, these gender-based price differences can be rationally explained. Because men are believed in general to behave in more risky behaviors than women (driving at excessive speeds, driving recklessly, driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, etc.), the cost of insuring men is greater than the price of insuring women, and this cost difference is reflected in insurance rates calculated in part on the gender of the insured.^[17]

Despite vehicle insurance typically costing men more, at that place is some research to propose that women really pay more under the fixed almanac pricing organisation because men drive more miles and are involved in twice as many accidents.^[xviii]

Car toll negotiations [edit]

For most Americans, new car purchases are their largest consumer investment after buying a habitation. In 1991, Harvard Law Professor Ian Ayres examined whether the process of negotiating for a new motorcar disadvantaged women and minorities. The written report was conducted in the Chicago expanse and involved 180 price negotiations at 90 dealerships. The study'due south testers included individuals of different races and genders and each was instructed to utilise the same negotiation strategy. Each tester entered a automobile dealership and bargained to purchase a new car. The results of the study ended that white males received significantly better prices than non-whites and women.^[ii]

Wellness insurance [edit]

Information technology is argued women tend to pay more than men for health insurance. 1 explanation for this is that women make more than use of the wellness care services made available to them by their insurance.^[xix]

A detailed survey of medical costs of the period 1999 to 2016 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows spending on healthcare for women is higher than for men. According to their study, during the ages of 18 to 44, health spending for females is 84% higher than men. Even when removing the cost of childbirth, spending for women ages 44 to 64 was yet 24% higher than for men. Spending for women ages 65+ is 8% higher. ^[xx] Adjusting for the cost of treatment due to injuries sustained while in the military makes the disparity greater nonetheless.

Nonetheless, the Affordable Care Human action made gender-based differences in premium prices illegal.

Law and policy [edit]

The Supreme Court of the The states has not enunciated a workable evidentiary standard to govern claims of subtle and unconscious forms of discrimination.^[ii] Further, at that place is no full general federal law explicitly prohibiting gender-based cost bigotry.^[2] ^[21] Because many pricing decisions are made by private businesses, the 14th Amendment mostly does not apply, and sex was not included every bit a protected class under federal public accommodation constabulary. As a issue, these issues tend to be left to the states.

In recent years, an increasing number of states and localities accept enacted laws and policies prohibiting gender-based price discrimination in public accommodations, such as nightclubs and bars.^[5] ^[viii] For case, courts in California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Maryland have consistently ruled against gender-based pricing. However, other states such equally Illinois, Washington, and Michigan, have adopted a case-by-case arroyo on the consequence.

California [edit]

California passed the Unruh Civil Rights Act in 1995, making California the start state to enact legislation to protect against gender-based toll bigotry.^[22] California Assemblywoman Jackie Speier introduced the Gender Tax Repeal Act to "effort to address the persistent trouble of gender-based discrimination in the sale of services related to haircuts, laundry, dry out cleaning, and alterations."^[23] The police was enacted to prohibit businesses from charging different prices for services based on a client'south gender.^[24] ^[a] The Gender Tax Repeal Human action provided for civil actions in which courts may award a minimum of $1,000 or upward to three times the corporeality of actual damages in addition to chaser's fees.^[25] The enactment of the Gender Revenue enhancement Repeal Deed aided in combating gender-based price discrimination in the pricing of services, just did not prohibit such price differentials with respect to products.

On January 21, 2016, California State Senator Ben Hueso introduced Senate Bill 899^[26] to extend prohibiting gender-based price discrimination from services to products.^[27] Senate Bill 899 proposed to prohibit businesses from cost discriminating with respect to goods of "similar or like kind" based on a client's gender. On March 31, 2016, Senator Hueso introduced amendments clarifying that businesses may accuse more than for a product if there are legitimate differences in costs of labor, materials, or tariffs.^[28] The amendments too clarified that "substantially similar" products included products of the aforementioned brand, share the aforementioned functional components, and share 90 percentage of the same materials and ingredients.^[28] Senate Pecker 899, sponsored past Consumer Federation of California, received support from the American Civil Liberties Marriage of California, California Public Interest Research Group, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and Women's Foundation of California.^[28] On April 12, 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 5-one in favor of Senate Bill 899 and volition advance the bill with a Senate Hearing.^[29]

Miami-Dade County, Florida [edit]

In 1997, Miami-Dade County in Florida passed an ordinance prohibiting businesses from charging dissimilar prices for products or services based solely on the client'southward gender. Yet, businesses are permitted to charge a different price for products or services that involve more than fourth dimension, difficulty, or toll.^[30] ^[b] Miami-Dade Canton'due south ordinance too permits express discount programs based on gender.^[thirty] For case, a business organization may advertise "Ladies Free on Friday Dark", as long as men are non prevented from patronizing the business organisation.^[31]

Endnotes [edit]

^ "According to the California Assembly'due south Office of Inquiry'due south study, 64 percent of dry out cleaners in five metropolitan areas charged women more than men to launder an identical article of clothing, and 40 percent of hair salons charged women more for basic haircuts."^[24]
^ "Cipher in this section prohibits bona fide discount programs based on gender classifications and then long as such programs are not designed, intended or used to deny whatever individual or group access to the premises or the right to patronize the bounds and such program is for a limited menstruation of time."^[30]

References [edit]

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Duesterhaus, Megan; Grauerholz, Liz; Weichsel, Rebecca; Guittar, Nicholas A. (2011-12-07). "The Cost of Doing Femininity: Gendered Disparities in Pricing of Personal Intendance Products and Services". Gender Problems. 28 (4): 175–191. doi:10.1007/s12147-011-9106-3. ISSN 1098-092X. S2CID 145812818.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Ayres, Ian; Siegelman, Peter (1995-01-01). "Race and Gender Bigotry in Bargaining for a New Car". The American Economic Review. 85 (3): 304–321. JSTOR 2118176.
^ Fisher, William W. (October 2007). "When Should We Permit Differential Pricing of Information?" (PDF). UCLA Constabulary Review.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d "From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Existence a Female Consumer" (PDF). New York City Consumer Diplomacy. December 2015. Retrieved May half-dozen, 2016.
^ ^a ^b ^c Tregouet, Thomas (July xi, 2015). "Gender-Base Price Discrimination in Matching Markets". International Journal of Industrial Organization. Elsevier. 42: 34–45. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2015.05.007.
^ Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou (1996). "Dealer Cost Discrimination in New Car Purchases: Bear witness from the Consumer Expenditure Survey". Journal of Political Economic system. 104 (3): 622–654. doi:ten.1086/262035. JSTOR 2138865. S2CID 154587823.
^ Ayres, Ian (February 1991). "Fair Driving: Gender and Race Discrimination in Retail Motorcar Negotiations". Harvard Law Review. doi:x.2307/1341506. JSTOR 1341506.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Rank, Jessica East. (2005). "Is Ladies' Dark Really Sexual practice Bigotry?: Public Accommodation Laws, De Minimis Exceptions, and Stigmatic Injury". Seton Hall Police Review.
^ Orr, Aleisha. "Tampon tax a "bloody outrage"". WA Today . Retrieved 2016-05-06 .
^ reporter, Amelia Butterly Newsbeat. "Why the "tampon revenue enhancement" is here to stay - for a while at least". Retrieved 2016-05-06 .
^ "These are the states that tax you for having a flow". Fusion . Retrieved 2016-05-06 .
^ Alexander, Larry (November 1992). "What Makes Wrongful Discrimination Wrong? Biases, Preferences, Stereotypes, and Proxies". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. doi:10.2307/3312397. JSTOR 3312397.
^ "Consumer Goods & FMCG | Statista". Statista . Retrieved 2016-05-12 .
^ "Leading FMCG companies worldwide based on sales, 2014 | Statistic". Statista . Retrieved 2016-05-12 .
^ Liston-Heyes, Catherine; Neokleous, Elena (2000). "Gender-Based Pricing in the Hairdressing Industry". Journal of Consumer Policy. 23 (two): 107–126. doi:10.1023/A:1006492207450. S2CID 154419363.
^ "Civil Rights -- Gender Discrimination -- California Prohibits Gender-Based Cost Discrimination -- CAL. CIV. CODE S 51.half dozen (WEST SUPP. 1996)". Harvard Law Review. May 1996.
^ Harris, Christine; Jenkins, Michael (July 2006). "Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why practise Women Take Fewer Risks than Men?" (PDF). Judgment and Determination Making. one . Retrieved June 12, 2016.
^ Butler, Patrick; Butler, Twiss; Williams, Laurie L. (June 1988). "Sexual practice-Divided Mileage, Blow, and Insurance Price Data Prove That Auto Insurers Overcharge Near Women" (PDF). Journal of Insurance Regulation. National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Retrieved June 12, 2016.
^ Gideon, Jasmine (2016-05-27). Handbook on Gender and Health. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN9781784710866.
^ {url=https://www.registerednursing.org/healthcare-costs-by-age/%7Ctitle=Here's How Much Your Healthcare Costs Will Rise as You Age}
^ Lam, Bourree. "Battle of the Prices: Is It Ever Fair to Charge One Sex activity More?". The Atlantic . Retrieved 2016-05-21 .
^ CAL. CIV. Lawmaking § 51.
^ CALIFORNIA SENATE JUDICIARY COMM., COMMITTEE REPORT FOR 1995 CAL. A.B. 1100, 1995-1996 Reg. Sess. 2 (1995).
^ ^a ^b McMurry, Christine (May 19, 1996). "The Cost of the Gender Gap: California has a new law that makes information technology illegal to charge men and women different prices for the same service. But some businesses are notwithstanding taking women to the cleaners". SFGATE.
^ See CAL. CIV. CODE § 51.six(d), 52(a).
^ S.B. 899, 2015-2016 Reg. Session (Cal. 2016)
^ Teri Sforza, 'Pinkish Tax' comes nether fire afterward research shows women's products costlier than men's. Los Angeles Daily News (Apr. 17, 2016).
^ ^a ^b ^c CALIFORNIA SENATE JUDICIARY COMM., Committee REPORT FOR 2016 CAL. S.B. 899, 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. 12 (Mar. 31, 2016).
^ SB-899 Gender Discrimination, History, California Legislative Information, (April. xx, 2016).
^ ^a ^b ^c Miami-Dade Canton, Fl., Gender Price Bigotry Ordinance (May 20, 1997)
^ MIAMI-DADE County CONSUMER PROTECTION, Price Gender Discrimination (Feb. 26, 2015).