Judicial Watch Victory: Historic Court
Ruling against Race, Ethnic, LGBT Quotas
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. It found that only in “very particular cases should
discrimination be remedied by more discrimination.”
The ruling
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 (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
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
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 (No.19ST-CV-27561)).
In January 2021, we filed a public
comment 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
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. (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; and
- The seventh-grade history teacher using class materials
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:
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 https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html.
A video presentation regarding the case is available here.
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:
In a fierce governmentwide effort to provide special accommodations to less
than one percent 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
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,
|
