Nation
CA Female Judge Rejects Law Mandating Businesses put Women on Boards
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.
China
Obama former AG lobbying Pentagon on behalf of a Communist Chinese drone company
President Barack Obama’s former U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, has reportedly been lobbying to the United States Pentagon on behalf of a Chinese company, Fox News Digital reported. The company, known as DJI, makes Chinese military tech.
Reuters reported that Lynch, now a partner at law firm Paul, Weiss, could be leveraging her government connections in order to aid the Chinese government-linked company. One specific move Lynch has done is she wrote a letter to the Pentagon last summer on behalf of one of her clients, SZ DJI Technology Co., asking for them to be removed from the DOD’s list of Chinese military companies.
Fox News reports:
DJI is one of the largest producers of drones in the world. The U.S. Treasury placed investment restrictions on it in December 2021, accusing it and seven other companies of actively supporting surveillance and repression efforts against Uyghurs.
Meanwhile, in Congress, a House GOP-led effort could restrict DJI’s activity in the U.S. even further. Stefanik and House China select Committee Chair Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., are leading a bill called the Countering CCP Drones Act, which would ban DJI from operating on U.S. communications infrastructure.
House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., told Fox News Digital “It is disgraceful but unsurprising that Barack Obama’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch is now working on behalf of a Communist Chinese drone company that the Department of Defense has identified as a Chinese military company.”
“Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch is lobbying the DOD to request they remove DJI from this list so the Communist Chinese company can operate with impunity in America. U.S. government officials, both past and present, should be working to ban these Communist Chinese spy drones and bolster the domestic drone industry, not advocating on behalf of a Chinese military company and the Chinese Communist Party.”
-
Elections6 days ago
Vindication for Trump: new evidence undercut two sensational claims Dems made in Jan. 6 investigation
-
Immigration6 days ago
FBI Director warns of border smuggling network ties to ISIS
-
education5 days ago
Biden’s budget would give hundreds of millions to train and promote DEI in schools and prioritize teachers of color over white teachers
-
Immigration6 days ago
Supreme Court buys time, extends freeze on Texas Immigration law through Monday
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.
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?
DEMON RATS ARE STUPID!