Judicial Watch: Hearing Set for Lawsuit Challenging California’s Racial, Ethnicity, LGBT Quotas for Corporate Boards

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a hearing is set for Monday, March 14, in its taxpayer lawsuit challenging the state’s racial, ethnicity, and LGBT quotas for corporate boards of directors (Robin Crest, et al. v. Alex Padilla, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of California (No.20ST-CV-37513)). The court has set the parties’ competing requests for summary judgement. A trial in the matter is scheduled for May 2, 2022,

Here are the details on the hearing:

Date: Monday March 14, 2022

Time: 8:45 a.m. PT, 11:45 a.m. ET

Place: Courtroom/Department 14,

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 Hill Street

Los Angeles, California

This action comes in the lawsuit filed October 2, 2020, by Judicial Watch in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles on behalf of three California taxpayers (Robin Crest, Earl De Vires and Judy De Vires) to prevent California from enforcing Assembly Bill 979 (AB 979). The bill requires that boards of directors of California-based, publicly held domestic or foreign corporations satisfy racial, ethnicity, and LGBT quotas by the end of the 2021 calendar year.

Judicial Watch argues that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources on AB 979 is illegal under the California Constitution. A Senate Floor Analysis produced during deliberation on the legislation concluded the bill draws distinctions based on race and ethnicity, and therefore, it is “suspect” and that “the existence of general societal discrimination will not ordinarily satisfy courts.” Also, according to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, AB 979 “will result in ongoing costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to gather demographic information and compile a report on this data on its internet website.”

In opposing the state’s effort to summarily end the taxpayer lawsuit, Judicial Watch attorneys note:

AB 979 and Defendant’s justifications also plainly “embody stereotypes that treat individuals as the product of their race, [ethnicity, sexual orientation, or transgender status] evaluating their thoughts and efforts—their very worth as citizens—according to [] criterion[s] barred to the Government by history and the Constitution.” In the end, AB 970 is simply a numerical set-aside that amounts to racial, ethnic, and LGBT balancing. ([“Racial balancing is not transformed from ‘patently unconstitutional’ to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it ‘racial diversity.’”].)

“California would require corporate board quotas based on race, ethnicity, and LGBT status. This law is the most significant attack in the modern era on constitutional prohibitions against discrimination,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Our taxpayer clients seek to protect the rule of law and ensure that taxpayer resources are not illegally used to advance blatant and pernicious race and other discrimination.”

Judicial Watch completed a trial in a separate lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of California taxpayers to prevent the state from implementing a 2018 law (SB 826) requiring publicly-held corporations headquartered in California to have at least one director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on their boards by December 31, 2019 (Robin Crest et al. v. Alex Padilla (No.19ST-CV-27561)).

In January 2021, Judicial Watch filed a public comment with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in response to a proposed rule change requiring race and gender quotas on the boards of corporations listed on the Nasdaq exchange. The proposed rule would require a self-identifying female and a self-identifying member of certain listed racial backgrounds, or an explanation from the company as to why it does not have at least two directors on its board who self-identify as such.

###