California Law Requiring Women in All Boardrooms Ruled Unconstitutional – Opinion

The ruling was issued by Maureen Duffy Lewis, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge. It declared unconstitutional California Senate Bill 8.26. This bill would have required at least one female member to be on every state corporate board. Judicial Watch filed this case in August 2019. You can access the Judicial Watch site here:

The verdict follows a similar ruling in Judicial Watch’s favor last month finding California’s diversity mandate for corporate boards unconstitutional.

Judicial Watch filed the gender quota lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2019, on behalf of California taxpayers, Robin Crest, Earl De Vries and Judy De Vries. The lawsuit challenges a 2018 law, known as Senate Bill 826, which requires every publicly held corporation headquartered in California to have at least one director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on its board of directors by December 31, 2019. The law requires that corporations have at least three of these persons on their boards, depending on how large the corporation is. Judicial Watch claimed that the California Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause is violated by the requirement for women to be on boards of corporations.

The state’s argument for the bill’s legality centered on its corrective nature against standing discriminatory board-level hiring practices. City News Service via Antelope valley Times

In their court papers, lawyers for the Attorney General’s Office argued that the plaintiffs could not show that any illegal or wasteful expenditures of taxpayer money occurred in the implementation of the law’s requirements.

Hannah-Beth Jackson (ex-State Senator) testified at the trial. Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, previously said that it is “disappointing that this conservative right wing group is more invested in spending thousands of dollars on a questionable lawsuit than supporting policy that improves business’ profits and boosts our economy.”

But (plaintiffs’ attorney Robert Patrick) Sticht criticized Jackson often during his final argument, saying she had no answer for some of his questions, including whether there were any gender-neutral alternatives to SB 826.

Ironically, though, the man signing the bill in law was also acknowledging its potential fate, which is now fully realized.

When he signed SB 826 into law in 2018, then-Governor Jerry Brown noted that there have been “numerous objections to this bill and serious legal concerns that have been raised,” adding that he would not “minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation.”

This bill shows a liberal attitude that is not limited to California. The bill favors vapid virtue signaling and over real solutions for breaking down the glass ceiling. It is not enough to demand inclusion without regard for qualifications that women are encouraged to participate at the highest corporate levels. It starts at the grassroots. Talent is found and developed within a business that’s wise. An employee well versed in a company’s purpose and methodology is that company’s greatest asset. No gender is relevant in job qualifications, either pro or cons. Businesswomen are not entitled to white knighting, while they wear aluminum foil armor. The best businesses and their employees have the greatest success in capitalism. It is best for the government to get out of its way. Government is best at playing the role of the faith healer, who meets the blind and sends them off lame.

About Post Author

Follow Us