Writy.
  • Home
  • Mass Tort
  • Personal Injury
  • Civil Rights
  • Worker’s Compensation
  • Premises Liability
  • Police Misconduct
No Result
View All Result
Writy.
  • Home
  • Mass Tort
  • Personal Injury
  • Civil Rights
  • Worker’s Compensation
  • Premises Liability
  • Police Misconduct
No Result
View All Result
Writy.
No Result
View All Result
board of directors conference room

California law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional, judge rules

Injury Insiders by Injury Insiders
May 18, 2022
in Premises Liability
0

[ad_1]

  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. California law requiring women on corporate…

Corporate Law

California law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional, judge rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

May 18, 2022, 9:11 am CDT

board of directors conference room

Image from Shutterstock.

A California judge has struck down a law requiring public corporations headquartered in the state to include a minimum number of women on their boards of directors.

Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis of the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled Friday, report Law360, Courthouse News Service and the Washington Post.

Duffy-Lewis ruled that the law violates equal protection guarantees in the state constitution.

The Washington Post described the law. It required publicly held companies to have at least one female board member by the end of 2019. This year, the number increased to two women for companies with five directors and to three women for companies with larger boards. Penalties ranged from $100,000 for failing to report a board’s gender composition to $300,000 for multiple violations of the gender requirement.

Only 26% of the 716 companies subject to the law said they met the law’s requirements for female board members last year, according to the Washington Post. Half of the companies didn’t file disclosure statements. The state didn’t fine the companies, however.

The goal of the law was to achieve gender parity and get more women on corporate boards. But that isn’t a compelling state interest, Duffy-Lewis said.

“Neither plaintiffs nor defendant have identified any case holding that the government has a compelling interest in remedying societal discrimination or even specific, private-sector discrimination that justified the use of a suspect classification,” Duffy-Lewis wrote.

Duffy-Lewis also said the plaintiffs were unable to show that the law resulted in the compelling interests of a boost to California’s economy; improvement in work opportunities for women; or the protection of employees, taxpayers and retirees.

Duffy-Lewis also noted a lack of testimony showing that publicly held corporations headquartered in California had engaged in intentional discrimination against women.

Judicial Watch, a conservative group, had challenged the law. Washington has a similar law, according to the Washington Post.

Last month, another California judge struck down a state law requiring corporate boards to include a minimum number of members of racial, ethnic or LGBTQ groups.



[ad_2]

You might also like

Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, May 16

Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 17

April 17, 2024
501940

Bet Gordon Ramsey Feels Like An Idiot Sandwich For Letting This Happen To His Pub

April 16, 2024
Injury Insiders

Injury Insiders

Next Post
Differences Between Workers’ Compensation and Personal Injury Lawsuits

Differences Between Workers’ Compensation and Personal Injury Lawsuits

© 2022 injuryinsiders.com - All rights reserved by Injury Insiders.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Mass Tort
  • Personal Injury
  • Civil Rights
  • Worker’s Compensation
  • Premises Liability
  • Police Misconduct

© 2022 injuryinsiders.com - All rights reserved by Injury Insiders.