Jen Rubin, chair of Mintz’s ESG practice group, looks at the recent California court decision striking down the state’s law mandating corporate board seats for underrepresented communities. She says boards still need to dedicate themselves to a meaningful process for seating the right board and offers suggestions for ways to ensure community representation.
A California court struck down California’s groundbreaking law mandating corporate board seats for members of certain underrepresented communities. The April 1 ruling granted summary judgment to the taxpayer challenging the law, finding that the law—known as AB 979 but codified as California Corporation Law § 301.4—violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution.
The ruling legally and practically implicates board recruitment practices. Despite the ruling, given the heightened interest from government regulators, shareholders, employees, and consumers, boards should nonetheless consider the benefits a diverse board may bring to the corporation’s mission.
Following the 2018 enactment of California’s gender mandate for corporate boards, which is applicable to California-based public companies, the California Legislature expanded that mandate through AB 979 to require that certain board seats be allocated to members of statutorily specified underrepresented communities.
Immediately following enactment, a taxpayer filed suit, claiming that the law violated the state’s constitution....
Baltimore Police Officers Mordechai Mandelbaum and Menachem Rosenbloom were found guilty on multiple charges on Wednesday, Oct. 14, following an encounter that ended with a surrendering man being ...