Marin Independent Journal

State's corporate diversity law ruled unconstitu­tional

- By Robert Jablon

A Los Angeles judge ruled Friday that California's landmark law mandating that corporatio­ns diversify their boards with members from certain racial, ethnic or LGBT groups is unconstitu­tional.

The brief ruling granted summary judgment to Judicial Watch, a conservati­ve legal group that sought a permanent injunction against the measure that was signed into law last year. The ruling didn't explain the judge's reasoning.

The measure requires corporate boards of publicly traded companies with a main executive office in California to have a member from an “underrepre­sented community,” including LGBT, Black, Latino, Asian, Native American or Pacific Islander.

The lawsuit argued that violated the state's constituti­onal equal protection clause.

The decision “declared unconstitu­tional one of the most blatant and significan­t attacks in the modern era on constituti­onal prohibitio­ns against discrimina­tion,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.

Messages seeking comment from the state weren't immediatel­y returned Friday evening.

However, in its court filings, the state argued that the measure didn't “discrimina­te against, or grant preferenti­al treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contractin­g.”

No companies have been fined, however, and the state argued that no tax dollars actually had been used to enforce the measure.

The 2020 law required corporatio­ns to include at least one member of an underrepre­sented community on their boards of directors by the end of last year, either by adding a seat or filling a vacant one.

The measure requires at least two such directors by the end of 2022 on boards with four to nine directors. Three directors are required for boards with nine or more directors. Firms that don't comply could face fines of $100,00 for first violations and $300,000 for repeated violations.

A “Diversity on Boards” report issued in March by the secretary of state found that about 300 out of some 700 corporatio­ns had complied. However, half of the corporatio­ns didn't file the required disclosure statement.

When working to pass the law, supporters evoked both the coronaviru­s pandemic and its disproport­ionate impact on minorities and weeks of unrest and calls for inclusion that followed the May 2020 murder of George Floyd in the custody of Minneapoli­s police.

After Floyd's death, many corporatio­ns issued statements of support for diversity, but many haven't followed through, Democratic Assemblyma­n Chris Holden of Pasadena, who co-authored the bill, said at the time.

In signing the bill, Gov. Gavin Newsom said it was important for minorities to have a voice on the boards of powerful corporatio­ns.

“When we talk about racial justice, we talk about empowermen­t, we talk about power, and we need to talk about seats at the table,” Newsom said.

The measure had been expected to face court challenges from conservati­ves who viewed it as a discrimina­tory quota, just as they did a 2018 law requiring a woman director on corporate boards.

A related Judicial Watch lawsuit in Los Angeles is challengin­g that law.

That law was on shaky ground from the get-go with a legislativ­e analysis saying it could be difficult to defend and thenGov. Jerry Brown saying he was signing it despite the potential for it to be overturned by a court.

The state defended the law as constituti­onal, saying it was necessary to reverse a culture of discrimina­tion that favored men and was only put in place after other measures failed.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States