Crest
I), a taxpayer seeks an injunction against the Secretary s allegedly unlawful expenditure of public funds to enforce the gender quota as an allegedly invalid classification in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution.[12]
In June 2020, the superior court overruled the Secretary s demurrer and upheld the taxpayer plaintiff s statutory standing to challenge an allegedly illegal use of public funds.[13] The case is headed for trial in late 2021. The same plaintiff and law firm filed a nearly identical action,
Crest
II, on the heels of the 2020 diversity mandate legislation.[14]
In both cases, the lead issue for trial will be whether the quota-like board mandates violate the California Constitution, which provides: The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or pub