2 ms·
Well this won't stand court challenges hopefully. It's dreadful that they ever passed this law. It's demeaning to women and simply will make people think that a
by mlindner 8y ago
Well this won't stand court challenges hopefully. It's dreadful that they ever passed this law. It's demeaning to women and simply will make people think that any woman on a board of directors is there for the sake of being the token woman to fulfill the requirements of the law.
EEOC: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm
> The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
Even if they argue a loophole "directors aren't employees thus aren't subject to discrimination law" then that will simply result in companies outside California (and considering most corporations are registered as Delaware C-Corporation, that's most of them) openly legally discriminating in selection of board members.
- gammateam 8y agoThis law was about symbolism, the Governor says so himself. The bill passed the House and Senate, and was signed by the Governor. His signing was purely symbolic and is aware of the serious legal concerns. So although a court challenge would put it on shaky ground, it actually might be politically tenuous to pursue the case at all! And plus, the Equal Rights Amendment will nix it anyway (but too bad the 50 year red supreme court will nix that)
- mlindner 8y agoWhy are we signing and creating laws purely for symbolism?