California law requiring corporate boards to seat 'self-identified' women ruled unconstitutional

On Friday, a California judge ruled that a law passed in the state in 2018 requiring that companies have at least one "self-identifying" woman on corporate boards violates the state constitution's equal protection clause.

According to Fox News, Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis handed down the ruling following a legal challenge from the conservative legal group Judicial Watch.

When signing the law, then-governor Jerry Brown had acknowledged that the legislation was on shaky legal grounds, but said that it sent a message during the height of the #MeToo movement.

The law required corporations to have at least one "individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth," according to the bill’s text, on their board of directors by the end of 2019.

By January of 2022, boards consisting five directors had to have two women, and boards with six or more had to have three.

Companies that failed to report on the composition of the board to California's Secretary of State could have faced fines of up to $100,000, while multiple failures to disclose could cost companies upwards of $300,000.

According to Fox News, the state had justified the law to the judge by stating that it was needed to combat gender discrimination that benefited men.

They claimed the law did not implement a gender-based quota because companies could just create more seats for women, without removing men from heir positions.

Judicial Watch argued though that it was illegal to use enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause with taxpayer funds, according to Fox News.

Duffy-Lewis said that she found the evidence "compelling," and that board candidates were being treated differently based on gender.

The state had reportedly failed to prove that the law was specifically tailored, or that it was meant to fix "specific, purposeful, intentional and unlawful discrimination."

"SB 826’s goal was to achieve general equity or parity; its goal was not to boost California's economy, not to improve opportunities for women in the workplace nor not to protect California taxpayers, public employees, pensions and retirees," the verdict stated.

Around half of the more than 700 companies required to file disclosures did not do so, but no fined had been issued.

A chief in the secretary of state's office testified during the trial that there was never any intention to issue such fines.

Secretary of State Alex Padilla sent former Gov. Brown a letter before he signed the legislation into law, stating that "Any attempt by the secretary of state to collect or enforce the fine would likely exceed its authority."

In response to the ruling, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that it "upheld the core American value of equal protection under the law."

"The Court eviscerated California’s unconstitutional gender quota mandate. This is the second California court decision finding that quotas for corporate boards are unconstitutional. The radical Left's unprecedented attacks on anti-discrimination law has suffered another stinging defeat," said Fitton.

"Thankfully, California courts have upheld the core American value of equal protection under the law. Judicial Watch's taxpayer clients are heroes for standing up for civil rights against the Left's pernicious efforts to undo anti-discrimination protections.  Judicial Watch’s legal team has helped protect the civil rights of every American with these successful lawsuits," he added.

The Friday ruling comes following the striking down of a similar measure last month. The ruling, challenged by Judicial Watch, required companies to have racial minorities or members of the LGBTQ+ community serve on their boards by 2021. Gov. Gavin Newsom, signed the law in 2020.