Moreover, it's not, in general, a legal reason in the US to discriminate where a protected class is involved, including, in employment, age over 40 or gender.
Saying that Law X exists answers the literal question, but not the implied actual question.
But of course, there could be laws that prohibit linking vehicle insurance cost to gender.
My solution, when I've been married, has been having my wife get insurance, and add me as a driver. But that doesn't matter so much now that I'm older.
Edit: I do agree that discrimination by gender is fundamentally unethical.
So that’s ok but for some reason if it were a particular race they wouldn’t think to charge people More by race so honestly I don’t know how to answer your question in a logically consistent manner.
Not completely sure, but I think it is.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-le...
Because car insurance isn't employment, is separately regulated, and does not exclude gender from permissible inputs into actuarial calculations.
Specifically, compared to perfect allocation of costs, it's a small subsidy from people outside of opposite-sex couples to opposite-sex couples, whereas not having gender rating with otherwise status quo policies is a large subsidy from women not in opposite-sex couples to men not in opposite-sex couples.
Under status quo policies, opposite sex couples are in practice fairly free to gender-optimize insurance pricing by putting the less expensive to insure driver as primary on the more expensive to insure vehicle, regardless of actual primary driver.
Not if what the algorithm optimizes is a measure provably closely linked to job performance.
In fact, as the array of protected classes and the statistical means available will probably over time allow proving prohibited disparate impact for any hiring method other than an algorithmic method optimizing a true job performance measure, algorithmic methods may soon be practically mandatory.
OTOH, algorithmic methods targeting any figure of merit that isn't provably tightly linked to job performance are going to be problematic, sure.
It's really not; disparate impact deals with it, but the doctrine was articulated in a case with ample evidence that the policy at issue, though facially neutral, was adopted as a deliberate replacement for explicit racial discrimination with an intent to maintain it's discriminatory effect and without other business purpose, and the doctrine was clearly intended principally to address such veiled-substitute policies.
The Supreme Court did not hold that, it merely noted that the lower courts had held that, and noted that a lack of discriminatory intent was “suggested” by the Company's efforts to help undereducated employees by financing a major portion of remedial education (part, but not all, of the policy held to be disparate impact was adoption of high school diploma requirements for positions for which such requirements has no substantial relation to job performance.)
The Supreme Court explicitly did not consider whether there was intent to discriminate, because it was not necessary to do so to resolve the case.