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 intentional, unlawful discrimination against women by private sector corporations in the selection of board members or that gender-neutral alternatives were not available.
Because Judge Duffy-Lewis found...
Civil society, for Locke, begins with a surrender. In the state of nature, anyone may punish a wrong done to the community. In society, that power passes to a common authority, and only the sovere...