California public companies to include women in their councils

In a letter, the coalition said the intention of the bill was good, but expressed concern that legislation "potentially elevates" gender "as a priority over other aspects of diversity ".

"There are two qualified candidates for a director position, a man and a woman," says the letter, the bill "would require the company to choose the candidate and to refuse him the job, in function of sex ".

And this has raised legal issues.

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who wrote about the bill, said Sunday that this amounted to a "blatant gender preference." is both an important government reason and there is no better way to achieve the result.

"I do not think the courts will abide by the law," she said, adding that legal action may be coming as early as next week. "I believe so strongly that we have nothing close to gender equality. And I really do not think the government is forcing it to answer. You may have incentives, tax breaks, or preferential government treatment if you meet certain thresholds of diversity.

Professor Levinson also stated that she believed that Mr. Brown's gesture amounted to a "huge finger-lift" to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Essentially, she said, it was Mr. Brown's "MeToo Moment".

"If there ever was a week to sign this bill, it was this week," she said. "Governor Brown does not really want to sign laws subject to serious court challenges."

Mr. Brown, however, signed it anyway. And since it has become his habit for decades in power, Mr. Brown has added a hint of historical fancy to the conclusion of his signature letter.

"As early as 1886, and even before women were allowed to vote, businesses were considered persons under the Fourteenth Amendment," he wrote. "Given all the special privileges that companies have enjoyed for so long, it is high time that business councils include those who make up more than half of the" people "in America."