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.
Photo not provided by the Equality Forum
"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
Email
|
Print
|
5 Comments
|
Contribute
|
-
»Appeals court sends Dallas lesbian custody case to trial
-
»SMU Student Senate rejects bid for LGBT senator
-
»This weekend's Dallas-based Jack E. Jett Show features Bobby Wygant as co-host
-
»Interview: Garland pastor Charles Curtiss of The One Church
-
»Fort Worth adds protections for transgender city employees
an event
|
a restaurant
|
a garage sale
|
a drink special
|
a movie showtime
|
local music
|
a job
|
a house
|
a deal
|
a pet
|

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 agoLink 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 agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
I hate those goddamned steers so much.
Verified
2 years, 3 months agoLink 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.
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.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink 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 agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal