Delaware Seen as Unlikely to Follow California's Lead on Corporate Board Gender-Balance Law
Delaware, home to most of the nation's publicly traded corporations, has a long tradition of allowing the "private ordering" of corporate affairs, leaving governance largely to shareholders. Gender diversity on the boards shareholders elect is not viewed differently, even in the era of the #MeToo movement.
October 31, 2018 at 03:28 PM
4 minute read
California recently enacted a law requiring gender balance on the boards of public companies headquartered in the state, but the prospect of similar legislation in Delaware is widely seen as a long shot, attorneys said.
Delaware, home to most of the nation's publicly traded corporations, has a long tradition of allowing the “private ordering” of corporate affairs, leaving governance largely to shareholders. Gender diversity on the boards shareholders elect is not viewed differently, even in the era of the #MeToo movement.
“It's a level of a kind of regulation that traditionally [lawmakers] have stayed out of,” P. Clarkson Collins Jr., chair of Morris James' litigation practice group, said in an interview.
The law requires California-based companies to have at least one woman on their boards by the end of 2019. By 2021, companies with five directors would need to have at least two female directors, and companies with more than six directors would be required to have three women on their boards.
The measure, signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown in late September, is generally seen as a step toward boosting diversity in U.S. boardrooms. However, California businesses have argued that it violates both the state and federal constitutions on the grounds of gender discrimination.
In Delaware, the policy has yet to gain traction with members of the General Assembly, and no lawmakers have publicly floated the idea of introducing similar legislation when the legislature reconvenes in January. Multiple calls to members of the state House and Senate this month were not returned.
The issue, in some ways, raises questions that are specific to Delaware politics. Lawmakers in Dover generally rely on the corporation law council of the state bar association to draft annual proposed amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law, which are then debated and, almost always, approved by the General Assembly. Rarely do bills that originate outside that process ever come up for a floor vote.
“I would not expect that kind of law change to occur,” said Collins, who chairs the corporation law section of the Delaware State Bar Association.
According to Collins, large institutional investors are already advocating for greater diversity among directors, and companies have started to respond.
“I think you're going to see more diverse boards, more women on boards of directors, because it's good business. It makes for a more successful company,” he said.
State Rep. Melanie George Smith, D-Bear, a Richards, Layton & Finger partner who long acted as the primary liaison between the DSBA and state lawmakers, said that instead of imposing regulations on businesses, legislators typically find ways to allow companies to opt into initiatives that fall in line with the state's policy objectives, as well as the interests of the business community.
She pointed to a measure, passed in early May, that charted a path for companies to apply for a certification of sustainability from the Delaware Department of State, if they adopt guidelines and make certain disclosures regarding their efforts.
“Instead of choosing to regulate it, we've chosen to support companies that choose to be sustainable,” said Smith, who is retiring from the General Assembly in January. “It's a big distinction but the same end goal.”
Still, legislation to mandate gender balance could be an appealing goal for some lawmakers, especially since the #MeToo movement has spurred a national conversation over power dynamics and the voice of women in the workplace. Delaware has a strong contingent of progressives, who have been fighting for greater influence within the Democratic Party, and a measure like California's could fit within their broader agenda.
But Smith said any major changes to Delaware's traditional model remained unlikely heading into the next legislative session.
“I think there's enough legislators that still appreciate that we're Delaware, and this is who we are and what we are,” Smith said. “You've kind of got to pick your battles at some point , and that's just a battle that the progressives are going to have to decide how they want to handle it.”
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 AllEagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute readPrivate Equity Firm's Counsel to Del. Supreme Court: Forfeiture Provisions Present 'a Choice'
4 minute readDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Trending Stories
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