SB 826 vests two enforcement mechanisms in the Secretary of State: “soft” enforcement in the form of public shaming and “hard” enforcement in the form of fines. Any seat filled by a woman for at least a portion of the year counts towards the representation requirements. By the end of 2021, California corporations must adhere to a schedule whereby boards of six or more have three or more female directors boards of five have two or more female directors, and boards of four or fewer have one or more female directors. are located in California” to have at least one female director on its board by the end of 2019. SB 826 requires every “publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices. Despite indicators that female board representation improves economic outcomes, SB 826 notes that in 2018, women held only 566 seats-15.5 percent-of corporate board seats in California, 26 percent of California Russell 3000 companies have no women directors, and only 12 percent have three or more women on their boards. SB 826 cites multiple studies showing that companies with substantive female board representation outperform companies with all-male boards with respect to earnings per share, return on equity, and stock performance. SB 826 seeks to “boost the California economy, improve opportunities for women in the workplace, and protect California taxpayers, shareholders, and retirees” since “studies predict that it will take 40 or 50 years to achieve gender parity, if something is not done proactively.” SB 826: Findings, Purposes, and Provisions A. Finally, I furnish a brief conclusion providing my thoughts on SB 826 and broader efforts for corporate gender parity going forward. Part III defends SB 826 against a hypothetical equal protection challenge, with an eye to precedent and policy. Part II lays out California equal protection law, beginning with constitutional provisions before turning to case law. This is necessary to analyze the equal protection implications of the bill and helpful to cut through the rhetoric that has surrounded its passage. Part I summarizes SB 826’s findings, purposes, provisions, and enforcement mechanisms. In this post, I defend the state constitutionality of SB 826, articulate the policy rationales underlying it, and respond to some of the criticisms levied against it. However, critics charge that SB 826 violates equal protection by requiring that certain seats be filled by women and, therefore, either vacated by or not awarded to men. The bill addresses a social issue (underrepresentation of women in corporate leadership) and an economic one (research indicates that companies with female board members fare better). SB 826 is the mandatory version of Senate Concurrent Resolution 62, which in September 2013 urged California companies to increase female representation on their boards to between one and three women, depending on board size. On September 30, 2018, Governor Jerry Brown approved Senate Bill 826 (SB 826), requiring female representation on California-based companies’ corporate boards.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |