4 ms·
I'm not sure why it didn't happen here, but there are a lot of times where it does. Another article mentioned that no fines had been levied because of this law
by frumper 4y ago
I'm not sure why it didn't happen here, but there are a lot of times where it does. Another article mentioned that no fines had been levied because of this law. That might be a reason it was allowed to stay in effect.
- native_samples 4y agoPresumably companies were simply complying rather than getting fined. Companies are generally way more law abiding than individuals, it's a rare legal department that would sign off on "let's ignore the law and hope it gets struck down before we get fined and dragged through the mud". Would that even be compatible with the rules around ensuring shareholder value?
- frumper 4y agoCompanies fail to comply with laws all the time. They suffer fines, recalls, and sometimes nothing for non-compliance. The Secretary of State at the time it was signed into law warned the Governor that it was unenforceable. The Secretary of states office testified during the trial that there was no intention of fining anyone over it. Edit: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-says-california-law-requiring-women-on-corporate-boards-is-unconstitutional https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-says-california-...
- native_samples 4y agoOk thanks, that's interesting. It sounds strange, but I can see how this isn't much of an argument against constitutions after all.