https://www.themarker.com/career/1.6576611

Sorry I didn’t give enough detail.
Thanks to Oren.
This story made me think about it for a long time and wonder whether this move was appropriate and reasonable.

I haven’t looked into it deeply, but at first glance it primarily reflects the problematic nature of the harassment issue, which makes people feel (I don’t know whether justifiably) as though it’s easy to frame someone and that the barriers against false complaints aren’t sufficient. On the other hand, it seems unreasonable to accept a demand not to employ women because the consequences are too severe. Seemingly, the conclusion is that on the one hand such a demand should not be allowed, and on the other hand great care should be taken to ensure there are no false complaints.
That said, on second thought one could imagine a different model. If you build a society that operates in a segregated way, such that a male public official has a male driver and a female public official has a female driver, that doesn’t violate equality. You need to ensure equality among the senior officials, and equality at the lower ranks will naturally follow as well. And if there isn’t equality among the senior officials, they should address that rather than the result.
What I’m saying here applies to employees who are alone together in a private space, meaning when they are together as a pair. Employees who work under me in a public space and not alone with me in my personal space—there is no reason there to impose separation. I think that from the standpoint of equality this is an entirely reasonable situation and it prevents problems. I emphasize that I’m not talking here about separation in the Haredi sense, but in a very limited sense.

It could be that there isn’t equality among senior officials because there isn’t equality in abilities.
In any case, right now it seems that if you allow people to choose, there will still be enough work for everyone.

Thanks to the Rabbi for the answer.