Retired Baker McKenzie Partner Sues to Stop California's 'Woman Quota' Law
"Women are capable of earning a spot on corporate boards without the government coercing businesses to hire them," Pacific Legal Foundation, representing named plaintiff Creighton Meland Jr., said in the complaint in California.
November 20, 2019 at 06:22 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Updated Nov. 21
A retired Baker McKenzie partner from Illinois is the named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit challenging a California law that requires corporations to include women on their boards of directors.
Creighton Meland Jr., a former banking and finance partner in Baker McKenzie's Chicago office, is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation. The complaint, filed in California's Eastern District, said the new state law "is not only deeply patronizing to women, it is also plainly unconstitutional."
A resident of Hinsdale, Illinois, Meland is a shareholder of Hawthorne, California-based OSI Systems, which makes medical monitoring and security components. The company's seven-member board of directors includes no women.
A spokeswoman for Baker McKenzie said Meland left the firm in 2018, and the firm does not endorse or support the lawsuit.
"Baker McKenzie is committed to a diverse and inclusive culture where all of our people flourish, contribute their ideas and skills to the success of the business of the firm and achieve a sense of meaningful well-being and purpose at work," she said.
Meland and his attorneys at the Pacific Legal Foundation allege the law, which the complaint refers to as "the woman quota," denies him the "right to vote for the candidate of his choice, free from the threat that the corporation will be fined if he votes without regard to sex."
Meland, through his attorney, declined to comment on the suit. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, said Meland approached the firm for representation in the case.
California's law requires a publicly traded company with "principal executive offices" in the state to have at least one woman serving on its board of directors by the end of 2019. By 2021, companies with six or more directors must have at least three women serving on the board. Corporate violators are subject to fines starting at $100,000.
"This law puts equal numbers above equal treatment," Boden said in a prepared statement. "This law is built on the condescending belief that women aren't capable of getting into the boardroom unless the government opens the door for them. Women are capable of earning a spot on corporate boards without the government coercing businesses to hire them."
Senate Bill 826 was a priority bill for the California Legislature's Women's Caucus. The legislation was patterned after similar requirements in European countries, including Norway and Germany, that a certain number of corporate board seats be reserved for women.
The legislation was among the last bills signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. Although he noted "potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation," Brown wrote in a signing statement that "given all the special privileges that corporations have enjoyed for so long, it's high time corporate boards include the people who constitute more than half the 'persons' in America."
The bill's author, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, said she respects Meland's "constitutional right" to challenge the law.
"However, I strongly believe that this measure meets constitutional requirements and will be held up in court," Jackson said. "Significant research has shown the importance of adding women to boards to improve profitability and add to the economic well-being of the state, as well the interest of the state to advance gender equality."
The law is facing a separate challenge in state court by three plaintiffs represented by the conservative group Judicial Watch Inc. That complaint alleges that the hiring requirements violate anti-discrimination language in Article 1 of California's constitution.
This report was updated with a comment from Baker McKenzie.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute readFederal Judge Sends Novel Damages Question in Employment Dispute to State Court
5 minute readCounty Reps: Appeal Likely Following State Court's Sales Tax Ruling for Retail Marijuana
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Democratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
- 2Decision of the Day: Split Circuit Panel Bars Enforcement of Ivory Law's 'Display Restriction' on Antique Group Members
- 3Chiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
- 42 Years After Paul Plevin Merger, Quarles & Brady’s Revenue Up More than 13%
- 5Trade Fixtures In New York Eminent Domain Cases - What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250