Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Is California's Mandate of Gender Quotas for Corporate Boards Constitutional?

Vikram Amar & Jason Mazzone, Is California's Mandate That Public Companies Include Women on their Boards of Directors Constitutional?

Earlier this week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 826, a landmark measure that requires each publicly held corporation whose principal executive offices are located in California to have, by the end of 2019, at least one woman on its board of directors. By 2021, each such corporation is required to have at least two women board members if the corporation has five directors, and at least three women board members if the corporation has six or more directors.

 

In today’s column, Part One in a series, we begin to spot and analyze some of the cutting-edge constitutional questions SB 826 raises. More specifically, in the space below we address aspects of federal equal protection review, focusing on what it means under federal intermediate scrutiny to for a state to “substantially further” a government objective. In Part Two we ask which government objectives—both in enacting and implementing SB 826—are appropriate for a state to pursue consistent with equal protection law and constitutional principles more generally, and we also discuss a separate potential constitutional problem: the impact that SB 826 has on corporations chartered in other states. Throughout, we shall train our analysis on issues under the federal Constitution, even though we recognize (and in some instances note) that California constitutional limitations may pose additional problems for the measure.

For prior posts on the new California law, see Cal Becomes First State to Require Publicly Held Corporations to Include Women on Boards

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/gender_law/2018/10/is-californias-mandate-of-gender-quotas-for-constitutional-boards-constitutional.html

Business, Constitutional, Gender | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment