Judge rules California law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional

[Moon]

A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California's landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional.

Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday.

The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.

Judge rules California law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional

In the three years it has been on the books, the law has been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms.

www.cbsnews.com

——————

From the article California never had any intention of enforcing this law and it was only Designed to send a message. I don’t think anyone should be surprised by this ruling.

 

[Michael Cole]

Good. Not really groundbreaking, but the ruling was correct, IMO.

 

[Metric Mouse]

It's weird watching California fight itself...

 

[mrjurrs]

A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California's landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional.

Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday.

The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.

Judge rules California law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional

In the three years it has been on the books, the law has been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms.

www.cbsnews.com

——————

From the article California never had any intention of enforcing this law and it was only Designed to send a message. I don’t think anyone should be surprised by this ruling.

There is only one way to address corporate issues. Tax them. They are not job creators, their loyalty is to one thing...increased shareholder value. Make them do the right thing by taxing them.

 

[GummyVitamins]

It's weird watching California fight itself...

They've been going through this intersectionality and woke nonsense for a while. How many years did they fight their constitutional amendment forcing equal treatment based on sex, race, etc? They wanted to start passing laws to mandate racial and sex discrimination, but their Constitution said no.

 

[Bear5131]

There is only one way to address corporate issues. Tax them. They are not job creators, their loyalty is to one thing...increased shareholder value. Make them do the right thing by taxing them.

I always find it strange the lefts only answer is tax them, like they get anything out of it, I sure don't.

 

[HIP56948]

Then they should rule that: No selfish asshole pricks should be on Corporate boards either.

 

[Moon]

There is only one way to address corporate issues. Tax them. They are not job creators, their loyalty is to one thing...increased shareholder value. Make them do the right thing by taxing them.

Corporations that have tens of thousands of employees aren’t job creators?

I don’t think taxing companies to force them to abide by your racial equity policies will end up any better than the overturned law did.

 

[mrjurrs]

I always find it strange the lefts only answer is tax them, like they get anything out of it, I sure don't.

And what other means of convincing a corporation to join the 20th century do you suggest?

 

[mrjurrs]

Corporations that have tens of thousands of employees aren’t job creators?

I don’t think taxing companies to force them to abide by your racial equity policies will end up any better than the overturned law did.

And how did those 10's of thousands of employees get hired? Consumers bought the corporation's product. I'm sure pets.com would employ 10,000 people now, if only consumers had valued their service...

 

[Metric Mouse]

And what other means of convincing a corporation to join the 20th century do you suggest?

Offer incentives for ten years for companies that conform to the intended board makeup.

If after ten years these companies are not vastly more successful than boards of current makeup, which would make companies voluntarily rush to change their makeup, then perhaps the issue needs to be addressed by other means.

 

[mrjurrs]

Offer incentives for ten years for companies that conform to the intended board makeup.

If after ten years these companies are not vastly more successful than boards of current makeup, which would make companies voluntarily rush to change their makeup, then perhaps the issue needs to be addressed by other means.

I could see that, but quite frankly, we already incentivize mature corporations too much imo.

 

[Metric Mouse]

I could see that, but quite frankly, we already incentivize mature corporations too much imo.

If there is no incentive and only downside, why would behavior change?

 

[mrjurrs]

If there is no incentive and only downside, why would behavior change?

Because a corporation will do anything to increase their profits, and taxes lower profits.

 

[Integrityrespec]

A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California's landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional.

Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday.

The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.

Judge rules California law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional

In the three years it has been on the books, the law has been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms.

www.cbsnews.com

——————

From the article California never had any intention of enforcing this law and it was only Designed to send a message. I don’t think anyone should be surprised by this ruling.

The left will be up in arms about this. Those types of laws are all they have and they almost always violate the Constitution.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Because a corporation will do anything to increase their profits, and taxes lower profits.

But if diversity lowers profits, should that be considered? Forcing companies to operate at losses is silly. Making them diverse and profitable would be far superior.

 

[mrjurrs]

But if diversity lowers profits, should that be considered? Forcing companies to operate at losses is silly. Making them diverse and profitable would be far superior.

How would adding a woman or women to a corporate board lower profits?

 

[reflechissez]

But if diversity lowers profits, should that be considered? Forcing companies to operate at losses is silly. Making them diverse and profitable would be far superior.

Do you have any examples of this?

 

[gdgyva]

There is only one way to address corporate issues. Tax them. They are not job creators, their loyalty is to one thing...increased shareholder value. Make them do the right thing by taxing them.

Companies arent job creators? Interesting

Who the hell do you think EMPLOYS the vast majority of people in this country?

And yeah....profit for the owner and shareholders are WHY companies are built

Jobs are a BENEFIT to the community

 

[gdgyva]

Because a corporation will do anything to increase their profits, and taxes lower profits.

taxes are paid after profits are calculated.....

EBITDA.....you will see that under every corporations financials

and what happens when taxes become too egregious? companies MOVE and take their jobs and benefits elsewhere

 

[Michael Cole]

taxes are paid after profits are calculated.....

EBITDA.....you will see that under every corporations financials

and what happens when taxes become too egregious? companies MOVE and take their jobs and benefits elsewhere

Some companies move. The highest taxed states have plenty of companies. Most do not move. Indeed, I'd guess those that move because of corporate tax rates are an infinitesimal number

 

[Roadvirus]

A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California's landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional.

Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday.

The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.

Judge rules California law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional

In the three years it has been on the books, the law has been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms.

www.cbsnews.com

——————

From the article California never had any intention of enforcing this law and it was only Designed to send a message. I don’t think anyone should be surprised by this ruling.

Good. State govts & Fed govt have no right whatsoever requiring corporations to follow diversity quotas...especially on corporate boards.

Now we need to see a judge strike down the SEC's Nasdaq diversity "transparency" shit (if it already hasn't):

SEC Greenlights New Director Diversity Disclosure Requirements for Nasdaq-Listed Companies

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved new disclosure rules on August 6 regarding board member diversity of Nasdaq-listed companies. Nasdaq’s new rules require most companies to tell shareholders how many of their board members are diverse in terms of race, gender, and LGBTQ+...

www.morganlewis.com

 

[Roadvirus]

There is only one way to address corporate issues. Tax them. They are not job creators, their loyalty is to one thing...increased shareholder value. Make them do the right thing by taxing them.

Tax them...for not having diversity quotas? That's just asking for a lawsuit as well.

 

[Roadvirus]

It's weird watching California fight itself...

This DEI diarrhea is going way too far.

 

[Bear5131]

And what other means of convincing a corporation to join the 20th century do you suggest?

Translation ~ play by liberal outrageous rules or else!!!!


Sounds fascist to me.