Facts
On 16 December 2019 three CGIL unions in Bologna (Filcams, Nidil and Filt) brought proceedings against Deliveroo Italia under Article 5 of Legislative Decree 216/2003. Riders booked work sessions through the Deliveroo app's self-service booking system (referred to in the order as 'SSB'), and priority access to booking windows depended on a score the algorithm assigned to each rider based on reliability and participation at peak times. The statistics covered the previous 14 days; cancelling less than 24 hours before a session or failing to attend could lower the score. The platform did not know or consider the reasons for a cancellation or absence. During the proceedings Deliveroo stated that it had stopped using the system from 2 November 2020.
Question
The question was whether the booking system amounted to indirect discrimination on grounds of 'personal beliefs', in particular trade union activity and the exercise of the right to strike, under Legislative Decree 216/2003, which transposes Directive 2000/78/EC. The unions argued that a rider who joined a strike without notice lost points for not attending a booked session and could lose a place in the priority group. The court also considered whether the unions could sue and claim damages in their own name.
Decision
The court found that a system which neither knew nor considered why a rider missed a session or cancelled late treated different situations alike, and that this 'blindness' carried discriminatory potential. Noting that a sudden strike is lawful, it held that a striking rider's statistics could worsen and priority could be lost; the same applied to other legitimate reasons such as illness, disability or childcare. It declared Deliveroo's conduct regarding access to bookings discriminatory, ordered publication of the order on Deliveroo's website and in the platform's FAQ section and of an extract in La Repubblica, and awarded the unions EUR 50,000 in damages plus costs.
Why it matters
The order is an early example of algorithmic work allocation being tested against anti-discrimination law. The court accepted that a system's apparent neutrality, and the absence of proof of an individual case of discrimination, did not remove liability, because criteria that ignore protected reasons can in themselves produce indirect discrimination.
Related stages
Deliveroo said after the order that it would consider an appeal. The sources reviewed report no higher-court ruling, and it could not be confirmed whether the order has become final.