Court Throws Out CA’s Race/LGBT Quotas



[INSIDE JW]

Judicial Watch Victory: Historic Court Ruling against Race, Ethnic,
LGBT Quotas

[[link removed]]

We won a significant victory last week in the California Superior
Court when it declared that the state’s racial, ethnic, and LGBT
quota for corporate boards of California-based corporations violates
the California Constitution.

This week the court released its full opinion
[[link removed]].
It found that only in “very particular cases should discrimination
be remedied by more discrimination.”

The ruling
[[link removed]]
and opinion come in the case (_Robin Crest, et al. v. Alex Padilla, in
his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of
California_
[[link removed]]
(No.20STCV37513)) granting our motion for summary judgment in our
lawsuit. We sued on behalf of taxpayers who are asking the court to
declare the quota scheme unconstitutional and seeking to enjoin its
enforcement.

This historic California court decision declared unconstitutional one
of the most blatant and significant attacks in the modern era on
constitutional prohibitions against discrimination. In its ruling
today, the court upheld the core American value of equal protection
under the law. Judicial Watch’s taxpayer clients are heroes for
standing up for civil rights against the Left’s pernicious efforts
to undo anti-discrimination protections.

We filed this lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on October 2,
2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, on behalf of three California taxpayers (Robin Crest, Earl De
Vries and Judy DeVries) to prevent California from enforcing Assembly
Bill 979 (AB 979). The law requires that boards of directors of
California-based, publicly held domestic or foreign corporations
satisfy a racial, ethnic, and LGBT quota by the end of the 2021
calendar year.

In his opinion striking down the gender-quota law, Judge Terry A.
Green found the law “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
California Constitution on its face.” The judge elaborated on why
the California Legislature exceeded its authority in mandating the
composition of boards:

The difficulty is that the Legislature is thinking in group terms. But
the California Constitution protects the right of individuals to equal
treatment. Before the Legislature may require that members of one
group be given certain board seats, it must first try to create
neutral conditions under which qualified individuals from any group
may succeed. That attempt was not made in this case. [Emphasis in
original]
The court concluded:

The statute treats similarly situated individuals – qualified
potential corporate board members – differently based on their
membership (or lack thereof) in certain listed racial, sexual
orientation, and gender identity groups. It requires that a certain
specific number of board seats be reserved for members of the groups
on the list – and necessarily excludes members of other groups from
those seats.

The Secretary has not identified a compelling interest to justify this
classification. The broader public benefits produced by well-run
businesses do not fit that bill.
California must treat its citizens equally as individuals under the
law, and not give discriminatory, preferential treatment to some based
on race, ethnicity or LGBT status. This court ruling marks a watershed
in the core American value of equal protection under the law for all
Americans. And it warns against the pernicious racialism of the
radical Left.

This is not our only action in this area.

We completed a trial in a separate lawsuit
[[link removed]]
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,
without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth” on
their boards by December 31, 2019 (_Robin Crest et al. v. Alex
Padilla_
[[link removed]]
(No.19ST-CV-27561)).

In January 2021, we filed a public comment
[[link removed]]
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.

TRIAL SET FOR HIGH SCHOOL COACH FIRED FOR OBJECTING TO BLM/CRITICAL
RACE THEORY CURRICULUM FOR DAUGHTER’S 7TH GRADE HISTORY CLASS

A trial
[[link removed]]
has been set for September 12, 2022, in the federal civil rights
lawsuit we filed on behalf of a Massachusetts father fired from his
position as high school football coach after raising concerns over
Black Lives Matter/critical race theory being taught in his
daughter’s seventh-grade ancient history class.

The Court has also set a hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment.

We sued on behalf of David Flynn, the father of two Dedham Public
School students. He was removed from his position as head high school
football coach after exercising his right as a parent-citizen to raise
concerns about his daughter’s seventh-grade history class curriculum
being changed to include biased coursework on politics, race, gender
equality, and diversity (_Flynn v. Forrest et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 21-cv-10256)).

The lawsuit details that in September 2020, Flynn’s daughter’s
seventh-grade history class, which was listed as “World Geography
and Ancient History I,” was taught issues of race, gender,
stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination, and politics. The lawsuit
explains:

In one assignment, Flynn’s daughter was asked to consider various
“risk factors” and “mitigating factors” that two people –
one identified as “white” and the other identified as “black”
– purportedly might use to assess each other on a city street.
Included among the various factors were skin color, gender, age,
physical appearance, and attire. “Black,” “aggressive body
language” and “wrong neighborhood” were among the “risk
factors” purportedly assessed by the person identified as
“white.” “White” and “Police officer” were among the
“risk factors” purportedly assessed by the person identified as
“black.”
Concerned about the abrupt change in curriculum, Flynn and his wife
contacted the history teacher and principal of the school – then
later Superintendent Michael J. Welch and three members of the Dedham
School Committee. On more than one occasion the Flynns asked for
assistance in resolving the issues with the curriculum. Ultimately, in
October 2020, the Flynns removed their children from school. The
Flynns’ list of concerns included:

* Dedham Public Schools changed the curriculum of the seventh-grade
history class without notifying parents or having a course description
and syllabus available for parents to review
* The new seventh-grade history class curriculum containing
coursework on politics, race, gender equality, and diversity that were
not suitable for twelve- and thirteen-year-olds;
* The seventh-grade history teacher not teaching topics of politics,
race, gender equality, and diversity objectively;
* The seventh-grade history teacher using a cartoon character of
herself wearing a t-shirt supporting a controversial political
movement
[[link removed]
and
* The seventh-grade history teacher using class materials
[[link removed]]
that labeled all police officers as risks to all black people and all
black males as risks to white people.

In January 2021, Flynn, who had been the head football coach at
Dedham High School (DHS) since 2011, was called into a meeting with
Welch as well as the DHS principal and athletic director. At the
meeting, Welch handed Flynn one of the emails he had written to the
Dedham School Committee members and informed him that one of the
committee members asked Welch, “What are we going to do about
this?” At the end of the meeting Flynn was told that they, “were
going in a different direction” with the football program. Minutes
later, the superintendent, high school principal, and athletic
director released a public statement, stating that Flynn was removed
as head football coach because he “expressed significant
philosophical differences with the direction, goals, and values of the
school district.”

It’s pretty simple. Coach Flynn was fired for exercising his First
Amendment rights to object as a citizen and father to extremist racial
propaganda in his child’s history class. The federal trial over this
abuse can’t come soon enough.

On Monday, the Court will hear arguments about Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment. In response to the superintendent’s, high
school principal’s, and high school athletic director’s assertion
that the case should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, we
argue
[[link removed]



Defendants have not demonstrated a legitimate reason why Dedham Public
Schools’ interests outweighed Flynn’s First Amendment rights. No
case has even come close to suggesting speech outside the confines of
the classroom (or football field) could be a disruption to the
educational mission of the school district. Similarly, no case comes
close to concluding that parents’ strong views of how a school
district handled concerns about their child’s education is not
protected speech.
The summary judgment hearing will be via video conference on
Monday, April 11, 2022, at 10 a.m. The media and public can register
two days in advance to “attend” the virtual conference at
[link removed].
A video presentation
regarding the case is available here
[[link removed]].

CENSUS BUREAU WILL SPEND $10 MIL TO STUDY HOW TO BEST ADD GENDER
IDENTITY QUESTIONS ON SURVEYS

The Biden administration’s extremism continues apace, with the
Census Bureau joining the rush to accommodate radical transgender
activists. Here, from our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog, are the
disturbing details
[[link removed]


In a fierce governmentwide effort to provide special accommodations to
less than one percent
[[link removed]]
of the American population, key federal agencies are implementing
significant—and costly—measures to support residents who identify
as transgender. This includes the U.S. Census Bureau spending $10
million to research how to best add questions about sexual orientation
and gender identity on surveys. The Biden administration calls it
“critical research” in a recent announcement
[[link removed]]
issued by the White House on Transgender Day of Visibility. It is
essential to invest in the research because the data collected by the
Census Bureau will help the federal government “better serve the
LGBTQI+ community by providing valuable information on their jobs,
educational attainment, home ownership, and more,” the White House
statement reads.

The administration took the opportunity on Transgender Day of
Visibility to also reveal additional measures that other federal
agencies will implement to accommodate transgender people, those whose
gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth. For instance,
the State Department will allow all American citizens to select an X
as their gender marker on U.S. passport applications. This will
deliver on the president’s commitment to expand access to accurate
identification documents for transgender and non-binary Americans,
according to the announcement. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) is strong-arming air carriers to “promote the use and
acceptance of the X gender marker to ensure more efficient and
accurate passenger processing.” The DHS agency created after 9/11 to
protect the nation’s transportation system, the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), will update its Standard Operating
Procedures to remove gender considerations when validating a
traveler’s identification at airport security checkpoints. TSA
PreCheck and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Trusted Traveler
Programs will also get updated to include X gender markers to
“enhance access for transgender, non-binary, and gender
non-conforming travelers.”

The Social Security Administration is eliminating a rule requiring
transgender people to provide legal or medical documentation of their
identity on official records. “This will significantly improve
transgender individuals’ experience in accessing their retirement
benefits, obtaining health care, and applying for jobs,” the Biden
administration claims. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace
discrimination laws, will promote greater equity and inclusion for
members of the transgender community by providing the option to select
an X gender marker during the initial intake process of filing a
discrimination charge. The Department of Education will update federal
student aid forms to include gender identity when applying for federal
financial aid, which the administration asserts will inform the agency
about barriers “transgender and non-binary students face in the
financial aid process.”

Other government efforts to accommodate this tiny population include
programs to support transgender veterans, mental health services for
transgender youths and training for school personnel nationwide to
support transgender and non-binary students. The Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS), the first federal agency to fly a
transgender pride flag above its headquarters, will soon reveal its
plan to “best serve LGBTQI+ Americans” based on a comprehensive
study on “Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation”
conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the nation’s
medical research agency. HHS is also using another
“groundbreaking” taxpayer-funded study on how transgender
Americans want to see themselves reflected on federal identifications.


In closing, the White House will roll out the welcome mat for
transgender visitors by “implementing updates that will improve the
White House campus entry process for transgender, gender
non-conforming, and non-binary visitors.” This will be accomplished
by modifying the White House Worker and Visitor Entry System (WAVES)
to allow an X gender marker option so transgender, gender
nonconforming and non-binary folks “can visit the People’s House
in a manner that respects and affirms their gender identity.”
Until next week,






[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU02"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2022, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]