It might also be illegal to deny employment to people just because they are accused of something and not convicted. Indian law assumes the culprit is innocent till proven otherwise.

Indian law takes infinite years to resolve a case. 1 year to actually frame charges, 10 years in lower court and 10 years in upper courts.

Absolutely, the question presupposes it's even up to the hiring company to make the distinction and that it hasn't already been made for them by the law.

On the question of 'is it better to exclude non-rapists than include rapists', especially in the case of claiming that their service is safer than taxis (which they do all the time, unless someone points to a counterexample at which point they disclaim all responsibility): I would say yes.

Is it legal to discriminate against employees who've been accused but not convicted of a crime? Well, no.

Is anything else Uber is doing in India legal? No.

So… if they're breaking the law anyway, plus making sure to hide everything they do, including basic contact information, from anyone who might need to contact the company (to the extent that the government themselves had to hire a driver just to get in touch with someone), I feel like denying employment to someone convicted of a violent sexual assault would probably be the least unethical thing going on with Uber in India.

I think it's better to quantify it and change the question to 'Is it better to include X non-rapists and Y rapists than to exclude X non-rapists and Y rapists.'

'Is it better to include into the set of Uber drivers, 10 non-rapists and 1 rapists or to exclude 10 non-rapists and 1 rapists.'

Probably the latter.

'Is it better to include, into the set of NYC residents, 5 million non-rapists and 3 rapists than to exclude 5 million non-rapists and 3 rapists.'

Probably the former.

Which is more profitable? Unfortunately such decisions often made on the basis of profit over ethics.

Screening on convictions alone may be more profitable in the short term but in the long run, as the article here shows, it may end up costing you much more.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that this instance (or the choice to screen based on proven actions rather than accusations) is what led to the ban.

You can go better than "accusation". Anyone could accuse anyone of anything. But you could set the bar in the middle with "arrested", which is half way between "accusation" and "conviction".

If on a sliding scale "conviction" is a 100 and "accusation" is a 20, "arrested" falls somewhere between 18 and 22.

Unfortunately there really is no middle ground. You can't point to an event and say that you're __% certain that the accusation is true. So again it boils down to whether you base the decision off of accusations or convictions alone.

As someone stated elsewhere it's not just an ethical decision, either. Economics should play at least a minor role in the decision-making process.

That's not really in the middle. The only difference between "accused" and "arrested" is that the accuser told the police.

Yes the accuser told the police, and the police thought there was suffecient reason to arrest the accused. That's the important difference. Sometimes the police are told, and they interview the accused and don't arrest them. Sometimes they do. The police are (in theory) supposed to have standards for who they arrest.

In the experience of my friends with regards to sexual assaults in North America, there's a substantial gap between 'accuser told the police' and 'arrested'. I can't imagine it would be any closer of a gap in India.

Is it? I was accused of a robbery when i was a teenager. I was arrested on another kids claim that i had broken into his garage. No supporting evidence, no other testimony. The charges were dropped, but I was cuffed and taken in.

No it's not. Arrests can happen for only an accusation, or even less in some cases.