Connect with us


CA Female Judge Rejects Law Mandating Businesses put Women on Boards



Screen Shot 2020 11 23 at 1.40.04 PM

Liberal California lawmakers passed a law requiring companies in the state to put female directors on their boards, but it was struck down in “the second legal setback in as many months for efforts to mandate board diversity” reports The Wall Street Journal.

The law required all public companies headquartered in California to have “at least two or three women on their boards by 2021, depending on the size of the board.” Penalties would be enacted for those who did not abide.

Conservative group Judicial Watch challenged the mandate on behalf of three California residents. Judge Duffy-Lewis wrote in her 23-page verdict that “the plaintiff’s evidence is compelling” but rejected the state’s argument that the lawsuit was premature because penalties or threatened prosecution had not yet occurred.

“The court eviscerated California’s unconstitutional gender quota mandate,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

WSJ wrote about similar cases:

Last month, another judge in the same state court struck down a law that required public companies in California to have at least one racially, ethnically or otherwise diverse director by 2021. Judge Terry Green said that law improperly mandated heterogeneous boards and must protect the right of individuals to equal treatment. That lawsuit was also backed by Judicial Watch.

Other litigation challenges a Nasdaq listing requirement approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2021. That provision requires companies to disclose board diversity details starting in August and, starting in 2023, to include on their boards at least one director who identifies as female, as a member of an underrepresented ethnic or racial minority, or as lesbian, gay, transgender or queer. By 2025, boards must include two such directors. Companies can sidestep the board membership requirement if they disclose why they have done so.


You may like

Continue Reading


  1. Curmudgeon

    May 18, 2022 at 11:54 am

    As a former board member of 4 organizations, a board is charged with governance of an organization. The decision of the board is the decision of all board members. In some fiduciary matters, board members can be personally sued for decisions. Unless a board member specifically requests his vote to be recorded as being not in favour of the decision, that board member can be sued as well. Where this is going, is that as a board member, it made no difference to me what another board member’s race, creed, colour, or religion was. My only interest was could the individual understand what the “business” of the organization was, and how he or she processed information coming to the board. Over 15 years of being a member of 2 boards, they changed from large majority male boards to small minority female boards, and the number of “minorities” remained roughly the same. Those boards functioned well, irrespective of the composition, because it people understood the “business” and their roles in it. Forcing board composition is contrary to the best interests of that organization, whether private sector, public sector, business sector, or charitable organization.

  2. Stephane

    May 20, 2022 at 4:40 am

    If a company is formed by a group of lesbians who hate non lesbians, they then have to accept a heterosexual man in their board?
    If a company directing its business to homosexual mysogynistic men does not take in a heterosexual woman on its board, they are not lawful?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich Fights Back DOJ Challenging Legal Citizenship Voter Law



department of justice building

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division with one clear message: ‘We’ll see you in court.’

Biden’s DOJ is challenging an Arizona law aimed to protect its citizens by ensuring only citizens can vote in elections.

Brnovich makes mention of a letter he received from Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General, dated June 27, 2022 “expressing your intent to challenge HB 2492, Arizona’s law that assures only citizens are able to vote in our elections.”

“Please be assured that I will defend this law to the U.S. Supreme our if necessary and defeat the federal government’s efforts to interfere with our state’s election safeguards, as I did last year in Brnovich v. DNC” the letter continued.

“It is curious, however, that the Department of Justice would use its resources to challenge a common sense law inn Arizona designed to guard against non-citizen voting, while the Biden Administration nis simultaneously opening our borders to encourage a flood of illegal immigration.”

“Is the federal government attempting to undermine our sovereignty and destabilize our election infrastructure?” Brnovich asks. “I hope that is not your intention.” The Arizona Attorney General concludes his letter by writing “I strongly urge you to reconsider your pursuit of this misguided suit and to instead recognize Arizona’s constitutional authority to conduct lawful and secure elections.”



You may like

Continue Reading

Trending Now



Proudly Made In America | © 2022 M3 Media Management, LLC