Law California Imposing (Unconstitutional) Gender Quotas on All Corporate Boardrooms

[Arkain2K]

I'm pretty sure government-mandated gender quotas are Unconstitutional

What say you @alanb @Quipling @Zankou ?

California moves closer to requiring women in boardrooms
By Rebecca Aydin | Aug. 29, 2018

California is one step closer to becoming the first state to mandate that women be included in corporate boardrooms with the passage of SB826 through the Assembly today.

The bill requires that publicly traded California companies instate at least one woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By 2021, this requirement expands to two women for five-member boards and three women for boards of six or more members.

The bill passed the Assembly 41-21 on Wednesday and will return to the Senate for a concurrence vote before the legislative session ends on Friday at midnight. If it clears the Senate, the bill will go to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown, who will have one month to sign it.

More than two dozen organizations officially oppose the bill, stating in a coalition letter that it prioritizes a single element of diversity and violates the U.S. constitution.

Only 15.8 percent of board seats in publicly traded California companies included in the Russell 3000 index belong to women, according to Bloomberg. Locally, more than one out of five directors of companies headquartered in San Francisco were women, while companies based in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Alameda counties were close to the national average, according to a report by Board Governance Research.

“We need to see women in these leadership positions. It creates a more realistic view of what women are capable of doing. It’s also good for the businesses,” said the bill’s author, State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...to-requiring-women-in-13191597.php?source=nlp

 

[Fugazy]

Lol

 

[Orgasmo]

Fight sexism by imposing sexism? Bit of an insult to women who made it on these boards through their own merits ain't it?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm pretty sure government-mandated gender quotas are Unconstitutional

Especially when you can't spot one from the other.

 

[Arkain2K]

California Moves to Impose Unconstitutional Gender Quotas for Corporate Boards
By Hans Bader | September 4, 2018

California’s legislature has passed a law requiring gender quotas for corporate boards in that state. The Sacramento Bee reports:

“Publicly traded companies based in California would be required to appoint women to the board of directors under a measure on its way to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

“The bill mandates that corporate boards include at least one woman by the end of 2019 and as many as three by the end of 2021, depending on size. Companies that fail to comply could face a fine up to $300,000 from the California Secretary of State.

“The Senate approved the bill 23 to 9 to send it to Brown on Thursday. The Assembly narrowly passed the proposal with the bare minimum 41 votes a day earlier …

“The California Chamber of Commerce opposes the measure, and says it … requires companies to discriminate against qualified men and violates the independent voting rights of corporate boards.”​

Courts have struck down gender-balance requirements for government boards, concluding that they are illegal quotas that violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause. See, e.g., Back v. Carter, 933 F.Supp. 738 (N.D. Ind. 1996).

They also have struck down requirements that regulated entities (such as private companies) to adopt racial or sexual quotas, or gender-balance requirements, governing their own workforces. See, e.g., Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 141 F.3d 344 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Courts also have also rejected the argument that “diversity” justifies gender quotas. See, e.g., Lamprecht v. FCC, 958 F.3d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

The California Constitution’s equal-protection clause also forbids racial and sexual proportionality requirements. (See Connerly v. State Personnel Board, 92 Cal.App.4th 16 (2001)). And such requirements are at odds with the public policy contained in Article I, Section 31 of the California Constitution, which forbids racial and gender quotas even in the public sector. (See Hi-Voltage Wireworks v. City of San Jose, 12 P.3d 1068 (Cal. 2000)).

After Norway adopted gender quotas for corporate boards — requiring companies to have boards of directors comprised of at least 40 percent women — large numbers of inexperienced people ended up as corporate directors. “A study by the University of Michigan found that this led to large numbers of inexperienced women being appointed to boards, and that this has seriously damaged those firms’ performance.” As I have explained in the past, claims that gender balance enhances company performance confuse cause and effect.

Supporters of California’s gender quotas for corporate boards argue that corporate board should reflect the makeup of the society they serve. But as a federal appeals court explained, it is illegal to mandate a quota just “to give a better reflection” of the gender or racial “composition” of the population an employer serves. (See Police Association v. City of New Orleans, 100 F.3d 1159, 1169 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 507 (1989)).

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/...constitutional-gender-quotas-corporate-boards

 

[PrinceOfPain]

"It creates a more realistic view of what women are capable of doing."

If it's more realistic, why isn't it happening on it's own in real life?


Anyway, employment quotas are disgusting.

 

[irish_thug]

I'm pretty sure government-mandated gender quotas are Unconstitutional. What say you @alanb @Quipling @Zankou ?

California moves closer to requiring women in boardrooms
By Rebecca Aydin | Aug. 29, 2018

California is one step closer to becoming the first state to mandate that women be included in corporate boardrooms with the passage of SB826 through the Assembly today.

The bill requires that publicly traded California companies instate at least one woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By 2021, this requirement expands to two women for five-member boards and three women for boards of six or more members.

The bill passed the Assembly 41-21 on Wednesday and will return to the Senate for a concurrence vote before the legislative session ends on Friday at midnight. If it clears the Senate, the bill will go to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown, who will have one month to sign it.

More than two dozen organizations officially oppose the bill, stating in a coalition letter that it prioritizes a single element of diversity and violates the U.S. constitution.

Only 15.8 percent of board seats in publicly traded California companies included in the Russell 3000 index belong to women, according to Bloomberg. Locally, more than one out of five directors of companies headquartered in San Francisco were women, while companies based in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Alameda counties were close to the national average, according to a report by Board Governance Research.

“We need to see women in these leadership positions. It creates a more realistic view of what women are capable of doing. It’s also good for the businesses,” said the bill’s author, State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...to-requiring-women-in-13191597.php?source=nlp

Easy solution. Get one of the men on your board to identify as a woman.

 

[SiKnSiN]

Lol absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Supereem]

America is a silly place.

 

[TheGreatA]

These types of measures are bound to be counter-productive, and will likely reinforce any negative stereotypes that may have existed, due to the hiring of potentially incompetent individuals as a result of their race or gender, rather than competency.

There are a number of other, much better alternatives to be explored, if you want more women to assume leadership positions.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Boards need to eat.

 

[Rygu]

Gender based affirmative action. How adorable.

What a proud day it would be for women.

 

[Neph]

madness

 

[KnightTemplar]

I'm pretty sure government-mandated gender quotas are Unconstitutional

What say you @alanb @Quipling @Zankou ?

California moves closer to requiring women in boardrooms
By Rebecca Aydin | Aug. 29, 2018

California is one step closer to becoming the first state to mandate that women be included in corporate boardrooms with the passage of SB826 through the Assembly today.

The bill requires that publicly traded California companies instate at least one woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By 2021, this requirement expands to two women for five-member boards and three women for boards of six or more members.

The bill passed the Assembly 41-21 on Wednesday and will return to the Senate for a concurrence vote before the legislative session ends on Friday at midnight. If it clears the Senate, the bill will go to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown, who will have one month to sign it.

More than two dozen organizations officially oppose the bill, stating in a coalition letter that it prioritizes a single element of diversity and violates the U.S. constitution.

Only 15.8 percent of board seats in publicly traded California companies included in the Russell 3000 index belong to women, according to Bloomberg. Locally, more than one out of five directors of companies headquartered in San Francisco were women, while companies based in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Alameda counties were close to the national average, according to a report by Board Governance Research.

“We need to see women in these leadership positions. It creates a more realistic view of what women are capable of doing. It’s also good for the businesses,” said the bill’s author, State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...to-requiring-women-in-13191597.php?source=nlp

I don't see a problem with this. Someone has to make the coffee and sandwiches, take notes etc.

 

[Makani]

These types of measures are bound to be counter-productive, and will likely reinforce any negative stereotypes that may have existed, due to the hiring of potentially incompetent individuals as a result of their race or gender, rather than competency.

There are a number of other, much better alternatives to be explored, if you want more women to assume leadership positions.

I disagree with the measure, but let's also not pretend those same stereotypes and prejudices haven't played a role in keeping women out of boardrooms, not to mention the general "boys club" mentality. I do think auch a push should come from female consumers though.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Come on, Cali. I can't defend this shit.

 

[Wet Blanket]

Gotta break up the boys clubs somehow.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

so....say military contractors have to have a women on the board?

 

[bufetadanacara]

This is what happens when government gets too big. They have too many people without anything to do so they need to start making up tasks. Here are your tax dollars at work.

I think that we should go one step further- at least one lesbian, one gay man, one tranny, one obese person, one bald person, one purple haired person... who am I forgetting?

 

[Satsui Ryu]

Stupid and will likely get shot down at some point.