[J]
For the 14th year in a row, shareholders of ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, have soundly rejected a proposal that would have added homosexuality to the company’s non-discrimination employment policy. The proposal, voted down by an overwhelming 81 percent of ExxonMobil’s shareholders on May 30 read, “The Shareholders request that ExxonMobil amend its written equal employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to substantially implement the policy.”
While the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” do not appear in the company’s written policy on discrimination, ExxonMobil insists its “global zero-tolerance policy” fully applies to “all forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” The company said in a statement that harassment, “even in its most subtle forms, directly conflicts with company policy and will not be tolerated. All employees are subject to disciplinary action, including termination, for any act of harassment.”
In a proxy statement before the vote, ExxonMobil’s board of directors encouraged the shareholders to reject the proposal, which would have added anti-discrimination language specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. “The Board has reviewed in detail ExxonMobil’s existing global policies that prohibit all forms of discrimination, including those based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in any Company workplace, anywhere in the world,” the statement read. “In fact, ExxonMobil’s policies go beyond the law and prohibit any form of discrimination. Based on these existing all-inclusive, zero-tolerance policies, the Board believes the proposal is unnecessary.”
Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association said that had the shareholders approved the proposal, “the company would have been forced to begin promoting and providing ‘acceptance’ training of homosexuality to all employees, even if they had religious objections.”
CNSNews.com noted that a week before the vote, Exxon “was sued by the LGBT advocacy group Freedom to Work, which alleges that ExxonMobil discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation by hiring a less-qualified administrative assistant rather than one who served as treasurer of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.”
Peter Romer-Friedman, an attorney for Freedom to Work, called Exxon “an outlier that refuses to follow industry standards. The concern is that it’s one of the largest corporations in the world yet won’t adopt an express policy prohibiting sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.”
According to the Los Angeles Times, the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign “gave Exxon a negative 25 score on its most recent rankings of major companies for its Corporate Equality Index” — a report that ranks businesses according to their willingness to embrace the homosexual culture. The Human Rights Campaign noted that many other firms scored higher than 80 on a scale of 100.
Freedom to Work president Tico Almeida complained that Texas-based ExxonMobil “stands virtually alone in the Fortune 100 in denying qualified gay and transgender Americans a fair shot to get a job based on their talents and hard work.” According to the Times, the group had sent the company two phony resumes “in response to a December listing for a job in Illinois. The group alleged that the candidate who volunteered for a feminist college group and earned a 3.9 grade-point average in college received more call-backs than the applicant with a 3.98 GPA and served as treasurer of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.”
“Exxon might make money from fossil fuels, but it’s lagging behind most other Fortune 500 companies with fossilized workplace policies,” Almeida said in a statement on the Freedom to Work’s Facebook page. “Exxon remains on the wrong side of history.”
However, Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council applauded Exxon’s decision to stand firm against the homosexual bullying that has intimidated other companies into submission. “While other businesses drift away from their principles or capitulate under pressure, Exxon is putting its stock in something other than political correctness,” said Perkins in a statement. “For the 14th straight year, shareholders voted to maintain their reputation as a company that upholds the commonsense principle that managers should be able to determine what conduct contributes to and what conduct detracts from the effective performance of an employee’s duties.”
Perkins said that the four-to-one margin against the pro-homosexual resolution “is a strong indication that the homosexual community’s agenda is not resonating beyond the most liberal states. Exxon is setting a good example for other businesses who think promoting extreme political views is the only away to avoid the strong arm tactics of far left special interests.”
Peter Sprigg, FRC’s senior fellow for policy studies, told CNSNews, that “the fact ExxonMobil has adopted none of the pro-homosexual policies demanded by groups like the Human Rights Campaign, yet remains the second largest corporation in America, demonstrates the falsehood of claims that such policies are necessary to attract a quality workforce. On the contrary, other corporations would be wise to follow ExxonMobil’s example, focusing on their core business rather than on appeasing small populations and special interest groups.”
Perkins applauded Exxon “for standing firm and not ceding the moral high ground to the bullies of the left. Their conviction is a refreshing change from companies like Target and Amazon.com, who continue to alienate customers with their radical political views.”
