Author Topic: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota  (Read 7151 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2022, 08:35:49 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
A similar state law in California related to corporate governance just got struck down as unconstitutional:

Quote
A Los Angeles court has found a California law mandating that publicly traded companies include people from underrepresented communities on their boards unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a conservative group seeking an injunction against the measure.

Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment to Judicial Watch on Friday. The conservative legal group had argued the law violates the equal protection clause of California’s constitution. The ruling did not provide Judge Terry Green’s reasoning behind the decision.

The law, passed in 2020, required that publicly traded companies with a main office in California appoint at least one member of the Asian, Black, Latino, LGBT, Native American, or Pacific Islander communities to their boards by the end of 2021 through either filling a vacant seat or creating a new one.

This case hasn't made it's way into Federal court yet, where it may ultimately end up.  But, I think the judge is right on the law, at least as far as I understand it:  quotas are unconstitutional.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2022, 09:53:34 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
A similar state law in California related to corporate governance just got struck down as unconstitutional:

Quote
A Los Angeles court has found a California law mandating that publicly traded companies include people from underrepresented communities on their boards unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a conservative group seeking an injunction against the measure.

Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment to Judicial Watch on Friday. The conservative legal group had argued the law violates the equal protection clause of California’s constitution. The ruling did not provide Judge Terry Green’s reasoning behind the decision.

The law, passed in 2020, required that publicly traded companies with a main office in California appoint at least one member of the Asian, Black, Latino, LGBT, Native American, or Pacific Islander communities to their boards by the end of 2021 through either filling a vacant seat or creating a new one.

This case hasn't made it's way into Federal court yet, where it may ultimately end up.  But, I think the judge is right on the law, at least as far as I understand it:  quotas are unconstitutional.
Sure, but if the NFL creates and pays for a position then it is different than a typical quota.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2022, 10:10:33 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
A similar state law in California related to corporate governance just got struck down as unconstitutional:

Quote
A Los Angeles court has found a California law mandating that publicly traded companies include people from underrepresented communities on their boards unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a conservative group seeking an injunction against the measure.

Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment to Judicial Watch on Friday. The conservative legal group had argued the law violates the equal protection clause of California’s constitution. The ruling did not provide Judge Terry Green’s reasoning behind the decision.

The law, passed in 2020, required that publicly traded companies with a main office in California appoint at least one member of the Asian, Black, Latino, LGBT, Native American, or Pacific Islander communities to their boards by the end of 2021 through either filling a vacant seat or creating a new one.

This case hasn't made it's way into Federal court yet, where it may ultimately end up.  But, I think the judge is right on the law, at least as far as I understand it:  quotas are unconstitutional.
Sure, but if the NFL creates and pays for a position then it is different than a typical quota.

How is that legally relevant?

It's still a position that violates Equal Protection, because under no circumstances is a white male eligible for it.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2022, 10:14:10 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
A similar state law in California related to corporate governance just got struck down as unconstitutional:

Quote
A Los Angeles court has found a California law mandating that publicly traded companies include people from underrepresented communities on their boards unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a conservative group seeking an injunction against the measure.

Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment to Judicial Watch on Friday. The conservative legal group had argued the law violates the equal protection clause of California’s constitution. The ruling did not provide Judge Terry Green’s reasoning behind the decision.

The law, passed in 2020, required that publicly traded companies with a main office in California appoint at least one member of the Asian, Black, Latino, LGBT, Native American, or Pacific Islander communities to their boards by the end of 2021 through either filling a vacant seat or creating a new one.

This case hasn't made it's way into Federal court yet, where it may ultimately end up.  But, I think the judge is right on the law, at least as far as I understand it:  quotas are unconstitutional.
Sure, but if the NFL creates and pays for a position then it is different than a typical quota.

How is that legally relevant?

It's still a position that violates Equal Protection, because under no circumstances is a white male eligible for it.
a position that wouldn't exist and is being created to undo years of discrimination.  Those are upheld all of the time.

That said, the current court would very likely strike it down in this situation.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2022, 10:20:13 AM by Moranis »
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #34 on: April 04, 2022, 10:24:14 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
A similar state law in California related to corporate governance just got struck down as unconstitutional:

Quote
A Los Angeles court has found a California law mandating that publicly traded companies include people from underrepresented communities on their boards unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a conservative group seeking an injunction against the measure.

Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment to Judicial Watch on Friday. The conservative legal group had argued the law violates the equal protection clause of California’s constitution. The ruling did not provide Judge Terry Green’s reasoning behind the decision.

The law, passed in 2020, required that publicly traded companies with a main office in California appoint at least one member of the Asian, Black, Latino, LGBT, Native American, or Pacific Islander communities to their boards by the end of 2021 through either filling a vacant seat or creating a new one.

This case hasn't made it's way into Federal court yet, where it may ultimately end up.  But, I think the judge is right on the law, at least as far as I understand it:  quotas are unconstitutional.
Sure, but if the NFL creates and pays for a position then it is different than a typical quota.

How is that legally relevant?

It's still a position that violates Equal Protection, because under no circumstances is a white male eligible for it.
a position that wouldn't exist and is being created to undo years of discrimination.  Those are upheld all of the time.

That said, the current court would very likely strike it down in this situation.

That seems to be in line with the California law that was just struck down.

What type of quotas are you referencing that are upheld all of the time?  Affirmative action and diversity "goal" programs are currently allowed in general, but quotas usually aren't.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2022, 12:13:53 PM »

Online Kernewek

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3798
  • Tommy Points: 262
  • International Superstar
I don't want to get in the way of two actual lawyers doing the lawyer talk, but a good example of differing judicial opinions in a similar case might be found in Meland v. Padilla/Meland v. Weber?  The first judge dismissed the case on the basis of lack of standing, but that was reversed by the 9th Circuit:

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/11/16/hearing-on-board-gender-diversity-statute/

Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2022, 12:24:26 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I don't want to get in the way of two actual lawyers doing the lawyer talk, but a good example of differing judicial opinions in a similar case might be found in Meland v. Padilla/Meland v. Weber?  The first judge dismissed the case on the basis of lack of standing, but that was reversed by the 9th Circuit:

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/11/16/hearing-on-board-gender-diversity-statute/

It sounds like the trial judge is doing everything he can to dismiss the plaintiff's case.  If the Ninth Circuit reverses you when you're ruling in favor of a non-discrimination statute, you know you went to far.

I haven't looked at either case in depth, but one thing to note:  classification based upon gender actually has to meet a lower level of scrutiny than race-based classifications.  This case, being purely based upon one's status as a female, is giving more deference than one that involves race.

Also, I'm willing to bet that this judge got it wrong in the eyes of the appellate courts.  Positions that are added and for which certain groups are ineligible are, in fact, quotas.  I mean, he gave away his bias / judicial philosophy when he pointed out that he thinks the law is working.  It's the results that matter, not the constitutionality in his mind.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2022, 01:14:09 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11225
  • Tommy Points: 860
A similar state law in California related to corporate governance just got struck down as unconstitutional:

Quote
A Los Angeles court has found a California law mandating that publicly traded companies include people from underrepresented communities on their boards unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a conservative group seeking an injunction against the measure.

Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment to Judicial Watch on Friday. The conservative legal group had argued the law violates the equal protection clause of California’s constitution. The ruling did not provide Judge Terry Green’s reasoning behind the decision.

The law, passed in 2020, required that publicly traded companies with a main office in California appoint at least one member of the Asian, Black, Latino, LGBT, Native American, or Pacific Islander communities to their boards by the end of 2021 through either filling a vacant seat or creating a new one.

This case hasn't made it's way into Federal court yet, where it may ultimately end up.  But, I think the judge is right on the law, at least as far as I understand it:  quotas are unconstitutional.
Sure, but if the NFL creates and pays for a position then it is different than a typical quota.

How is that legally relevant?

It's still a position that violates Equal Protection, because under no circumstances is a white male eligible for it.

Isn't the big difference here that in the CA case, it is a State government imposing a "quota" on private businesses where with the NFL, it is a business deciding to impose it on themselves.

For example, could Starbucks decide that they want at least one man and one woman on duty at every store?  Would that be unconstitutional?  How about if it was at least one race minority on duty, would that be any different?  Or how about Hooters?  Is it unconstitutional for them to only hire women with certain physical attributes?

I know these "programs", even if well-intentioned as I think the NFL one is, get tricky in the details and the execution.  But I think the NFL is trying to do the right thing for the league.  That the league will be stronger with more diversity.  League and player relations better.  More broad consumer support or fan interest.  All things that are good for the league.  That the league wants for itself.

But yes, there will be some white men along the way that feel they are not being treated fairly.  That someone got the job over them because they were female or a minority.  But if the league is making these decisions based on what they feel is best for their business, how can that be unconstitutional?

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2022, 02:03:29 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
But if the league is making these decisions based on what they feel is best for their business, how can that be unconstitutional?

This isn't really the standard, nor should it be.  Private businesses aren't free to do what they want.  Discrimination is still illegal, under Title VII and other provisions of the Civil Rights Act, under most state laws and constitutions, etc.

If the NFL case is ever litigated, I expect that even beyond federal and state civil rights laws, there would be an argument that the Equal Protection Clause applies directly to the NFL, as it is directly entwined with government actions.  Public subsidies, stadium funding, etc. have all been propped up by arguing that the NFL provides a public benefit.  That would most likely prohibit discrimination under the Constitution.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2022, 02:33:25 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11225
  • Tommy Points: 860
But if the league is making these decisions based on what they feel is best for their business, how can that be unconstitutional?

This isn't really the standard, nor should it be.  Private businesses aren't free to do what they want.  Discrimination is still illegal, under Title VII and other provisions of the Civil Rights Act, under most state laws and constitutions, etc.

If the NFL case is ever litigated, I expect that even beyond federal and state civil rights laws, there would be an argument that the Equal Protection Clause applies directly to the NFL, as it is directly entwined with government actions.  Public subsidies, stadium funding, etc. have all been propped up by arguing that the NFL provides a public benefit.  That would most likely prohibit discrimination under the Constitution.

So how does Hooters "get away" with it, for example?

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2022, 02:42:14 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
But if the league is making these decisions based on what they feel is best for their business, how can that be unconstitutional?

This isn't really the standard, nor should it be.  Private businesses aren't free to do what they want.  Discrimination is still illegal, under Title VII and other provisions of the Civil Rights Act, under most state laws and constitutions, etc.

If the NFL case is ever litigated, I expect that even beyond federal and state civil rights laws, there would be an argument that the Equal Protection Clause applies directly to the NFL, as it is directly entwined with government actions.  Public subsidies, stadium funding, etc. have all been propped up by arguing that the NFL provides a public benefit.  That would most likely prohibit discrimination under the Constitution.

So how does Hooters "get away" with it, for example?

Not my specialty, but certain occupations get carve outs related to branding or the essential essence of a business:

Quote
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act lets companies discriminate on the basis of "religion, sex, or national origin in those instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business or enterprise."

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota
« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2022, 02:53:26 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11225
  • Tommy Points: 860
But if the league is making these decisions based on what they feel is best for their business, how can that be unconstitutional?

This isn't really the standard, nor should it be.  Private businesses aren't free to do what they want.  Discrimination is still illegal, under Title VII and other provisions of the Civil Rights Act, under most state laws and constitutions, etc.

If the NFL case is ever litigated, I expect that even beyond federal and state civil rights laws, there would be an argument that the Equal Protection Clause applies directly to the NFL, as it is directly entwined with government actions.  Public subsidies, stadium funding, etc. have all been propped up by arguing that the NFL provides a public benefit.  That would most likely prohibit discrimination under the Constitution.

So how does Hooters "get away" with it, for example?

Not my specialty, but certain occupations get carve outs related to branding or the essential essence of a business:

Quote
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act lets companies discriminate on the basis of "religion, sex, or national origin in those instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business or enterprise."

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9

Interesting, thanks for the background.  I think it would be hard for the NFL to say hiring more minorities is "reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of the league.