As written (assuming the article is an accurate portrayal), the law is a blatent violation of the equal protection clause, as it provides a protection for women

As written (assuming the article is an accurate portrayal), the law is a blatent violation of the equal protection clause, as it provides a protection for women that it does not provide for men. A neutral requirement is not such a blatent violation. Although it still runs the risk of a disparite impact argurment and, perhaps more damming, seems to be in direct contradiction with federal (and likely state, but more specific wins there) anti discrimination laws. Or rather, compliance would involve violating other laws, at least in some cases.