Judge rules against California's woman on Boards law

[spartan max2]

 

 

Quote

Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday.

The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.

David Levine, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, said he was not surprised by the verdict. Under state and federal law “mandating a quota like this was never going to fly,” Levine said.

State Senate leader Toni Atkins, a Democrat from San Diego, said the ruling was disappointing and a reminder “that sometimes our legalities don’t match our realities.”

https://apnews.com/article/technology-government-and-politics-california-los-angeles-1ee602b76a4f9707c923a27da5805bcd

[Myles]

I think this was a good decision.   Hiring based on sex, race or any other like thing is wrong.  

[spartan max2]

20 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think this was a good decision.   Hiring based on sex, race or any other like thing is wrong.  

I agree. It's seems like a bad move. Just builds resentment.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I love this blurb, from a democrat, of course:

“More women on corporate boards means better decisions and businesses that outperform the competition,” Atkins said in a statement.
“We believe this law remains important, despite the disheartening ruling.”

1) If women on boards ==> better decisions, why aren't women being chosen more often?? I thought businesses all wanted to maximum pro$its??

2) The issue is NOT who makes better decisions, it's - do you have the freedom to make the choice you want? It is, after all, your business and your money invested into it.

[+DieChecker]

A result of California's liberal laws contradicting each other. Can't have equality and favoritism at the same time, if based on race or sex.

Perhaps there should be a law to seek equal representation of Christians on every corporate board. Religion is a protected class after all.

Probably good that its unconstitutional then, huh, Liberals.

Edited May 18, 2022 by DieChecker

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

) If women on boards ==> better decisions, why aren't women being chosen more often?? I thought businesses all wanted to maximum pro$its??

While I am not in favor of a quota of women on a board, this argument does not hold a lot of water.  The good old boy network will make a lot of money for themselves and claim that was the best that could be done.  I have come to expect through a lifetime of past experience that nobody in power tells the unvarnished truth to the ordinary citizen.

On a corporate board backed by investment banks money management funds and pension funds the money is not their own. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

17 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

While I am not in favor of a quota of women on a board, this argument does not hold a lot of water.

I find it difficult and actually wrongful to criticize from the sidelines, the ways of the experienced people. 

Did you ever see a female used car salesman? There's a reason for that, Tat. 

[Doug1066]

On 5/17/2022 at 10:38 AM, Myles said:

I think this was a good decision.   Hiring based on sex, race or any other like thing is wrong.  

Without imposition of quotas, or rules that have the same effect, hiring will be based in part on sex, race and other things not related to qualifications.

Doug

[Tatetopa]

52 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Did you ever see a female used car salesman? There's a reason for that, Tat. 

Too honest or higher standards?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Too honest or higher standards?

lol

not aggressive enough 

[RavenHawk]

I agree on the ruling but maybe for California, they should just let it be.  When they revisit what went wrong in California, this would just be one thing that they could point to.

[Tatetopa]

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

lol

not aggressive enough 

Do you buy from an aggressive salesman or one who seems interested in what you want and feels trustworthy?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I find it difficult and actually wrongful to criticize from the sidelines, the ways of the experienced people. 

Did you ever see a female used car salesman? There's a reason for that, Tat. 

Because woman have a conscience?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

21 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Perhaps there should be a law to seek equal representation of Christians on every corporate board.

I was kinda' hoping to see a law passed making it mandatory that every NBA basketball team have 3 old, slow white men on the roster. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Do you buy from an aggressive salesman or one who seems interested in what you want and feels trustworthy?

Good luck finding one that fits the description of the latter :-)

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Because woman have a conscience?

listen to the pander bear lol

[+DieChecker]

5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I was kinda' hoping to see a law passed making it mandatory that every NBA basketball team have 3 old, slow white men on the roster. 

To be inclusive and representational. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Without imposition of quotas, or rules that have the same effect, hiring will be based in part on sex, race and other things not related to qualifications.

Doug

The trick isn't enforced quotas, but to figure how to make your target WANT what your trying to achieve. If there's underrepresentation of woman, create a tax break for those who do meet criteria. Or some other break or regulation relaxation. 

More flies with sugar is what they say.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

On 5/18/2022 at 4:50 PM, Tatetopa said:

Do you buy from an aggressive salesman or one who seems interested in what you want and feels trustworthy?

It's doubtful that you get the choice. 

[itsnotoutthere]

On 5/17/2022 at 4:38 PM, Myles said:

I think this was a good decision.   Hiring based on sex, race or any other like thing is wrong.  

Agree. it is by definition discrimination.

[+DieChecker]

Well..........

You see.........

Any devoted Liberal will tell you there's "discriminatory", and then there's "DISCRIMINATORY". One is very, very bad and affects minorities and the under represented. The other is subject to looking away, because it affects those in the majority, and so while defined as "bad", and wrong, it is tolerated, or even celebrated, as the net effect helps minorities.

So.....

Depends on who's being affected as to good or bad. Might depend on the liberals current emotional state also. If their calm, discussion may be possible. If triggered, or hit with microaggressions, they will just scream, and rant, and swear. I've noticed that the swearing is pretty common.

Edited May 21, 2022 by DieChecker