Decision follows a similar ruling last month on a separate law requiring racial or ethnic diversity on boards

A state judge struck down a California law requiring companies in the state put female directors on their boards, the second legal setback in as many months for efforts to mandate board diversity.

Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis of the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles ruled that the 2018 law was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution, according to a copy of the verdict.

The California law mandated that public companies with headquarters in the state have at least two or three women on their boards by 2021, depending on the size of the board. Those that didn’t faced financial penalties.



The lawsuit challenging the mandate was brought by conservative legal group Judicial Watch on behalf of three California residents. The state attorney general’s office defended the case, with the two sides squaring off in front of Judge Duffy-Lewis for the nonjury trial, which concluded in February.

“The plaintiff’s evidence is compelling,” Judge Duffy-Lewis wrote in her 23-page verdict. She rejected the state’s argument that the lawsuit was premature because the government hadn’t implemented penalties or threatened prosecution.

The judge agreed with plaintiffs that the law treats similar board candidates differently based on gender, leaving it to the state to prove that the law meets a compelling public interest, is necessary and is narrowly tailored. “Defendant has not met its burden,” she wrote.


California lawmakers had mandated that public companies based in the state have at least two or three women on their boards by 2021, depending on board size.


A spokesman for Judicial Watch said the group had no immediate comment, saying it hadn’t yet seen the decision.

The office of California Secretary of State Shirley Weber couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

Last month, another judge in the same state court struck down a law that required public companies in California to have at least one racially, ethnically or otherwise diverse director by 2021. Judge Terry Green said that law improperly mandated heterogeneous boards and must protect the right of individuals to equal treatment. That lawsuit was also backed by Judicial Watch.

Read the Verdict
Other litigation challenges a Nasdaq listing requirement approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2021. That provision requires companies to disclose board diversity details and, by August, include on their boards at least one director who identifies as female, as a member of an underrepresented ethnic or racial minority, or as lesbian, gay, transgender or queer. By 2025, boards must include two such directors. Companies can sidestep the board membership requirement if they disclose why they have done so.

A lawsuit by the Alliance For Fair Board Recruitment—pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with oral arguments tentatively scheduled for August—alleges that the rule’s approval by the SEC violates federal antidiscrimination laws and the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause.

Critics say such rules violate equal-protection principles and force companies to discriminate in hiring directors. Advocates for board diversity mandates say they are sometimes the best way to make significant progress in expanding representation among key corporate decision makers.

With or without mandates, companies have been increasing the number of women on their boards in recent years.

Nearly 86% of California-based publicly traded companies had two or more women on their boards at the end of 2021, while 1% included no women on their boards, according to corporate-leadership data provider Equilar.

Among S&P 500 companies nationally, every board included at least one female director, and 96% included two or more, up from 58% a decade earlier, recruiting firm Spencer Stuart found last year in its annual report on corporate boards.

For the most part, companies have increased board gender diversity as they fill vacancies or by adding additional seats. Women made up 43% of new nonemployee directors last year, Spencer Stuart found. Overall, about 30% of S&P 500 directors were women.

link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/j...32?mod=hp_lead_pos11

Rather than using the mechanisms already available to enact changes on boards, the 'there should be a law for that' crowd went full retard and attempted to apply a double-standard to discrimination.

Discrimination is discrimination, just like racism is racism, there's no special kind.

While this law was put into effect, corporate boards were well on their way towards getting more women seats as pressure from stakeholders, shareholders and investors was already building and news media was making 'the story' a central pillar to all the Me Too headlines over the last 6-years.

The fucking idiot morons who propose this type of shit wouldn't know meritocracy if it bitch slapped them on the face twice.

I need to move to a free state. And I hope someday we declare war on the imbeciles that is CA and drive them into the pacific.

I am so fucking done with the concepts of equality, inclusion and diversity. If you can't make it on merit, tough. If you're one of the letters, keep it to yourself because I just don't give a fuck.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
I am so fucking done with the concepts of equality, inclusion and diversity.

You've allowed The Left to warp the definition of those words. Don't.
Challenge those who celebrate the destruction of the common language. Make them EXPLAIN what they mean, then throw it back in their face when all they are trying to do is enact double-standards and bigotry.

I didn't know such a ridiculous law existed, but I'm not surprised, and I'm certainly not surprised that it's in the ridiculous state of California.

All jobs/positions should be granted on merit alone, and nothing else.

I'm not going to attempt to speak for anyone else here, but for the stocks in my investment account, I don't personally care if the BOD's is all black, all white, all male, all female, or even all little green Martians. I just want a BOD that makes me the biggest return on my investment. The rest is just noise.

You mean rewards should be based on performance only? What a concept. Unfortunately it is quite a radical position to many on the left.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
I am so fucking done with the concepts of equity equality ,inclusion and diversity.

FIFY
The acronym is DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion)
The 1st and last are BS in the context they're used IMO, but I'm actually cool with equality, equity is the part they're twisting about, which is nothing more than "equity in outcomes"

It was on shaky ground the moment it was proposed and before it became law ans while it was still being kicked around elected officials in Sacramento said it was likely unenforceable and the constitutionality was in doubt. Even Gov. Brown opined on the questionable validity but went forward anyway.

It's simply absurd that the state can mandate a private company hire a minimum number of a certain gender to sit on corporate boards any more than the public could demand a ballot measure that mandated that some races or genders must hold a certain percentage of elected seats in Sacramento.

Wait, you mean they should hire on merit alone? Holy dog shit Private Cowboy!

Very, very soon, California will be watering their crops with Brawndo. It’s got what plants crave.

Cool.

Uncah Ho instituted various regulations - with mask mandates being the best known - that he knew wouldn't pass Constitutional muster in court. He seemed to do so on the intertwined theories that his ukases would be difficult to formally challenge in court and that he could inflict enough consequences on the people to "get something done" before the courts hauled him up short.

I'm glad the courts started the process of chewing this up as quickly as they did. I'd hate to see Uncah Ho having succeeded in starting a trend.

Re-thinking this- someone has to serve the refreshments...

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
It was on shaky ground the moment it was proposed and before it became law ans while it was still being kicked around elected officials in Sacramento said it was likely unenforceable and the constitutionality was in doubt. Even Gov. Brown opined on the questionable validity but went forward anyway.

This is what pisses me off. Our elected officials pass shit they know (or should know) is unconstitutional. Often times, causing great cost to the taxpayers. No skin off their nose though, as long as a they think it will get them more votes than it costs them they don’t care about constitution, right, or wrong.

I am generally not a part of the “There ought to be a law…” crowd, but I’ll make an exception for shit such as this. Personal liability for these politicians, open personally to lawsuits, judgements, and criminal penalties for abuse of authority in such cases.

If meetings run long, the company could save money if someone could make sammiches right there instead of sending out… just sayin’…

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
I am so fucking done with the concepts of equity equality ,inclusion and diversity.

FIFY
The acronym is DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion)
The 1st and last are BS in the context they're used IMO, but I'm actually cool with equality, equity is the part they're twisting about, which is nothing more than "equity in outcomes"

The acronym 'should' be DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity)...