The Verdict Is In On California's Female Director Quota Law

• Published date: 18 May 2022
• Subject Matter: Corporate/Commercial Law, Employment and HR, Government, Public Sector, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Corporate and Company Law, Directors and Officers, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment, Constitutional & Administrative Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
• Author: Mr Keith P. Bishop

As I noted yesterday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis has found California's female director quota law, SB 826, to violate the Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution (A person may not be . . . denied equal protection of the law"). Crest v. Padilla, L.A. Super. Ct. Case No. 19STCV27561 (March 13, 2022). Judge Duffy-Lewis issued her verdict following a lengthy trial. Here are some highlights of the verdict:

• The plaintiffs met their burden to prove that men and women are similarly situated for purposes of SB 826, thereby shifting the burden to the defendant to show:
  
  • A compelling state interest;
  • SB 826 is necessary; and
  • SB 826 is narrowly tailored.
• There is no compelling governmental interest in remedying either societal discrimination or generalized non-specific allegations (citing Connerly v. State Personnel Board, 92 Cal. App. 4th 16 (2001).
• The defendant failed to sufficiently prove that SB 826's use of gender-based classification was necessary to boost California's economy, improve opportunities for women in the workplace, and protect California taxpayers, public employees pensions, and retirees.
• The defendant failed to show that the legislature considered gender-neutral alternatives to remedy specific, purposeful or...