A similar state law in California related to corporate governance just got struck down as unconstitutional:
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?