A law passed in June 2004 banned the use of gender preferences in job recruiting in Austria. At the time over 40% of openings on the nation’s largest job-board specified a preferred gender. We use data on filled vacancies, merged to employer records, to study how the legal prohibition of gender preferences affected hiring and job outcomes. Prior to the ban, most vacancies with a stated preference signalled stereotypical preferences (e.g., a preference for females at a majority female workplace), but a minority stated preferences to recruit against stereotypes - a subset we call “non-stereotypical” vacancies. Vacancies with a gender preference were very likely (>90%) to be filled by someone of the preferred gender. We develop models based on pre-ban vacancies to predict the probability of specifying a preference for female, males, or neither gender. We then conduct event studies of the effect of the ban on different predicted preference groups. We find that the ban led to a rise in the fraction of women hired for jobs that were likely to be targeted to men (and vice versa), reducing the degree of gender segregation across firms. Partially offsetting this effect, we find a reduction in the success of non-stereotypical vacancies in recruiting workers that would diversify the gender mix of the workplace, and a rise in filling times for these vacancies. For the larger set of stereotypical vacancies, however, vacancy filling times, wages and job durations were largely unaffected by the ban, suggesting that the law had at most small consequences on job match efficiency.