Jump to: site navigation, content.

Local stuff that matters to you.
News & events for
Sunday, December
6

Thursday, August 30, 2007

New study showing Texas dead-last in sexual orientation discrimination compliance

According to a recent study by the Equality Forum, it appears that of of the FORTUNE 500 companies, only a microscopic 6% will not include sexual orientation in their discrimination policies. A whopping 13 of those 30 reside here in Texas.

The Equality Forum, a national and international gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) civil rights organization, announced that 470 (94%) of the 2007 FORTUNE 500 Companies voluntarily include sexual orientation in their employment nondiscrimination policies. Equality Forum collaborates in this project with Professor Louis Thomas, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and Ian Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor, Yale Law School.

Even more astounding, a whopping 75% of Texas companies still discriminate against Steers

Photo not provided by the Equality Forum

Even more astounding, a whopping 75% of Texas companies still discriminate against Steers

"When 94% of the FORTUNE 500 Companies and 89% of the public support workplace equality, Congress is derelict by its failure to include GLBT citizens in federal workplace discrimination protection," stated Malcolm Lazin, Executive Director, Equality Forum. "There is no cost to provide sexual orientation protection. Corporations and shareholders benefit from a workplace where merit, not intolerance, prevails."

Of the 30 FORTUNE 500 Companies that are noncompliant, 13 (43.3%) are headquartered in Texas. "When it comes to equality, Texas is a lone and tarnished star," Lazin stated.

Vanguard was among the large institutional shareholders that reviewed this issue and determined that it was in the best shareholder interest to support sexual orientation workplace protection. Exxon Mobil is one of only two companies in the FORTUNE 100 that does not provide sexual orientation protection. At the 2006 and 2007 annual Exxon Mobil shareholders meetings, Vanguard supported sexual orientation workplace equality by voting its 194 million shares against Exxon Mobil management.

"Wharton has studies that demonstrate that workplace diversity including sexual orientation is in the best corporate and shareholder interest," stated Professor Louis Thomas. "This workplace protection likewise sends an affirming message to the estimated $660 billion annual domestic GLBT consumer market."

Among the non-compliant North Texas companies are ExxonMobil, D.R. Horton, and Celanese. You can read the full breakdown here.

Source: Equality Forum



  • Staff
  • Verified User
  • Anonymous

Scott Doyle, says:

Hmmm.

Did y'all look to see how many of the Fortune 500 are in Texas? <a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/states/TX.html">Seems to be 52</a>. As most card players know, 13 out of 52 is 25%. So, a quarter of the Fortune 500 companies in TX don't have GLBT included in their nondiscrimination policies. Stating that "Of the 30 FORTUNE 500 Companies that are noncompliant, 13 (43.3%) are headquartered in Texas." isn't quite fair without disclosing how many of the 500 are actually here. And considering there's nothing to comply with federally at this point, 'noncompliance' doesn't appear to be the best term for the status of things (in my opinion).

I'm all about calling people out for intolerance, but I encourage peeps to be as well-rounded as possible about it.

My personal opinion on whether GLBT should be incorporated into policies by law - I think it would hurt rather than help initially, and would just be another straw on the camel's back for an already ridiculously litigious country.

Verified

2 years, 3 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Scott Doyle, says:

D'oh!

I was looking at Cali for the 52...TX is 56. Only supports the argument, though. =)

TOLERATE MY MISTAKE, I AM WHO I AM.

Verified

2 years, 3 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Pavel Lishin, says:

I hate those goddamned steers so much.

Verified

2 years, 3 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

terryorze, says:

The common law doctrine of "employment at will" has been around for a long time. Sure, there are specific government protections, but the whole thrust of law in the area of hiring and firing is one of "hands off" - an employer should be able to hire or fire anybody whenever it wanted and for whatever reason. Private businesses have to voluntarily adopt policies of nondiscrimination. The best way to sum up employment law is that a worker can be fired for any reason other than a federally prohibited reason.

Although Congress has outlawed discrimination on the basis of &quot;race, color, religion, sex, or national origin&quot;, it has not yet seen fit to include &quot;sexual orientation&quot;. A handful of states (Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, NJ, and Wisconsin) and cities (NY, LA, Chicago) have, however, outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or &quot;affectional preference&quot;. Employees who get fired on account of health reasons (AIDS or HIV) have to file disability discrimination suits.

Gay and lesbian employees are presently unable to have their "partners" covered under group health insurance plans or other employee benefits. The real issue here is that the only way anybody can acquire affordable health insurance is through an employer. Every one of us will lose our health coverage as soon as we are too ill to work. How totally asinine of system is that.

Gays and lesbians are not a protected class of people. Federal guidelines prohibit employment discrimination on the supposed characteristics of an entire class of people. Hence, federal supervisors must determine, on an individual basis, if the person would bring contempt to public service, manifest behavior that affects job fitness, or imply possible embarrassment to the government. During the cold-war McCarthy era (1943-1953), at least 1,700 federal workers were fired for allegations of homosexuality. All branches of the military allege that homosexuality is incompatible with military service, and estimates are that about 100 soldiers are discharged every year from the military for homosexuality. The FBI and CIA claim to treat each case individually, but usually deny homosexuals from jobs on the basis of national security. In addition, about 3 million people in America hold various security clearances of one sort or another. No gays or lesbians hold the most top secret (SCI) clearances. Gay applicants are subjected to excessive background checks, and the presumption is that they are a security risk through &quot;indirect blackmail&quot; - via their friends and lovers.

Anonymous

2 years, 3 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Scott Doyle, says:

Terroryze, while you're correct about Texas being a "right-to-work" state, the extent to which employment at will is utilized varies by state.

But that's exactly why pushing for legislation on the issue or calling for a lynching if a company doesn't adopt a GLBT nondiscrimination policy is asinine (at least, in TX). All an employer has to do is state they don't feel a candidate is qualified for the position, and leave it at that...if someone actually tells the applicant he/she isn't getting a job b/c of sexual orientation, they deserve a swift slap in the face (and possibly hit to the pocketbook).

Verified

2 years, 3 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

What do you think?

:

:

Email Print 5 Comments Contribute

See more stories in:


Quantcast