NOTAnother setback for the Americans. Without comparison of course with the potential questioning of the right to abortion in half of the country, but all the same. In the – albeit privileged – world of female entrepreneurs, this is a step backwards. On May 13, a Los Angeles judge challenged the law that had placed California at the forefront of women’s access to the executive bodies of large corporations, at least among American states – France, among other European countries, has had legislation in place for more than ten years that imposes a “balanced representation of women and men” on boards of directors and supervisors.
The Californian text, adopted in 2018, required companies listed and domiciled in the state to include at least one woman before the end of 2019 on their board of directors, two women before the end of January 2022, three women when the board has more than six members. The law provided for fines of $100,000 to $300,000 for violators.
The conservative association Judicial Watch attacked the text in court, saying that the imposition of a quota contravened the article of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection for all. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis agreed. “The purpose of the law is not to remedy discrimination, but to find a balance on the basis of gender”, she criticized. A similar law, but relating to the presence of racial or sexual minorities on boards of directors, was invalidated in early April by another Los Angeles judge, for the same reason. On the other hand, supporters of these measures refute the term “quotas”. For them, it is enough for companies to increase the size of the boards of governance.
The French example
In fact, the law was almost doomed. In signing it into law, Governor Jerry Brown himself questioned its constitutionality, while insisting on the need to advance the cause of women – it was the #metoo era. His services had also noted that it would probably be impossible for them to pay the fines. In fact, they imposed none.
Why pass laws that have no chance of being implemented? It seems to have become a California specialty. In 2019, elected officials decided to challenge Trump by requiring candidates for the White House to publish their tax returns. The measure was immediately invalidated, unanimously by the State Supreme Court. In 2021, they banned the sale of semi-automatic weapons to young people under 21: the initiative was canceled on May 11 by a federal appeals court. The same treatment is to be expected for the bill allowing citizens to sue gunmakers, modeled on Texas’ anti-abortion law, which allows anyone to sue those who “facilitate” abortions.
You have 22.67% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.