ExxonMobil shareholders have again voted down a proposal to add gay and transgender employees to the Irving-based corporation’s nondiscrimination policy.
Meeting at the Meyerson Symphony Center in the Dallas Arts District, the ExxonMobil shareholders voted 80 percent to 20 percent Wednesday morning against a resolution asking the corporation to amend “its written equal employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to substantially implement the policy.”
The proposal has been introduced each year since Mobil and Exxon merged in 1999. The highest level of support came in 2008 at nearly 40 percent.
“It’s disappointing, but this isn’t the end of the issue for us,” said Resource Center Dallas’ Rafael McDonnell, who has lobbied the company on the issue. “We’re going to continue to reach out and engage them. … I think the White House needs to go back and revisit this executive order.”
The proposed executive order would require contractors to include sexual orientation and gender identity in their nondiscrimination policies if they do business with the federal government, which Exxon does. However, President Barack Obama’s administration indicated earlier this year that he doesn’t plan to sign the proposed order anytime soon.
Mobil was one of the first companies in the world to include sexual orientation in its nondiscrimination policy and offer benefits to the same-sex partners of gay employees. But ExxonMobil rescinded those policies after the merger.
Outside the meeting, dozens of protesters lined Flora Street in front of the Meyerson on Wednesday. About 50 people with organizations including Code Pink, United Steel Workers and Occupy Dallas joined GetEQUAL protesters to shout for equality and ending discrimination, while a handful of protesters parodied the CEOs that make the choices and profit from ExxonMobil.
Daniel Cates, North Texas regional coordinator for GetEQUAL, who helped organized the protest, said he wouldn’t be surprised by the vote regardless of the result.
“The people that are against it seem very against it. The people who are for it really done a good job of pushing it this year,” he said. “We’ve got a better shot than in the past.”
As for Exxon not voting in favor of adding the protections in the past, Cates said the company had not learned to change and be more inclusive, which would ultimately hurt business.
“They clinging to antiquated business practices,” he said. “It’s a matter of really learning that this is good for business.”
This year, the resolution was initiated by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who wants the company to not only amend the nondiscrimination policy, but also to begin offering health benefits to the spouses of employees married in the Empire State.
The comptroller controls the state’s pension funds. As of May 18, New York’s pension fund held more than 16 million shares of ExxonMobil worth more than $1 billion.
ExxonMobil has called the measure unnecessary. It says the company is a “meritocracy” for its 82,000 workers worldwide, and that it already prohibits all forms of discrimination.
This is also the first year ExxonMobil appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission to have the shareholder resolution thrown out. The company based its claim on a nondiscrimination statement in its Corporate Careers publication.
The SEC refused to allow ExxonMobil to throw out the resolution, saying the publication doesn’t have the weight of a corporate nondiscrimination policy.
Meanwhile, ExxonMobil maintains the lowest possible rating on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, with a minus-25.
In response to Wednesday’s vote, the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement noting that as of 2012, 86 percent of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their EEO policy and 50 percent include gender identity.
“The shareholder resolution to add sexual orientation and gender identity to ExxonMobil’s EEO policy was a non-binding referendum and the company still has the chance to do the right thing,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “As perhaps the largest corporation in the country, ExxonMobil has a responsibility to be a good corporate citizen; sadly they have fallen far short. The company has resisted offering basic employment protections for their LGBT workers for years and it’s time they treat all of their employees like the valuable assets they are.”
Our family quit buying from Exxon after the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. After Exxon merged with Mobil and rescinded Mobil’s inclusive policies, we began campaigning actively against the resulting merged corporation. We will continue to counsel people NOT to buy Exxon products until it quits polluting both the natural environment and the social environment with its greed and corruption.
My wife and I haven’t bought a drop of Exxon gas — not one single drop — since Exxon bought out Mobil and started being a boastful corporate homophobe. Mobil was a leader in recognizing equality for ALL Americans. Exxon is an obnoxious bigot.
Need I say that other companies will continue to get our gas money?
I’m so glad that my husband and I haven’t given Exxon/Mobil a penny of our money in over a decade. Putting profits over the rights of your own employees is repugnant.
Brings back memories of a song I remember from my childhood:
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won’t be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after….
One tin soldier rides away.
I hope they choke on their decision. I guess they are not even ready to see an intersex person in their misdt. What a shame they hoolse out, I will not buy any of their products.
not to mention the large number of us LGBT who could bring amazing talent to their company and increase revenue.
I used to like Mobil Gas.
No problem, there is a gas station on just about every corner in America…..but there is no Exxon-Mobil in any of my tanks. Hasn’t been for 10 yrs….and will continue. Chevron/Shell get my business. My gay dollars have spoken clearly.
Sorry to tell you, but if you tank up at Chevron, Conoco or whatever, you never sure it’s their crude. That’s the dumbest argument I ever heard in regard to the equality issue.
It seems like every time you have homophobia it is due to them secretly fighting about there sexuality so they want to make it unpleasant for as many people as possible. When will people stop their judgement on others and focus on their self?
Screw Exxon…I can flip ’em off while driving by waving my 4′ x 6′ rainbow flag…A**holes
Hey, John: One point of confusion for me – do you know why is this a policy up for shareholder vote? It’s not like all company policies are subject to shareholder approval. Just don’t get why this isn’t a CEO’s decision in consultation with the Board of Directors?
To all the folks saying they haven’t bought any Exxon gas:
You do buy Exxon gas. The name on the station does not indicate whose gas they are selling. Every oil major with refining assets sells gas to every brand of gas station. What’s more: oil is mostly fungible and it is processed by any refiner no matter who pulls it out of the ground. In other words, Exxon might pump it, Marathon might refine it, and Shell might sell it at the pump. Or BP might pump it, Exxon refine it, and have it sold at a Marathon station.
The only people you are punishing are the little station owners who happen to have a Mobil or Exxon sign. You’re not hurting ExxonMobil one bit. Sorry.
Great job by the Exxon Mobil shareholders. Companies should not be held hostage by fringe groups with a scam issue. I don’t push my sexual orientation on anyone, why should the LGBT community push theirs. They have been pshing this non-issue for 40 years as my vote is to let them push it another 40.
Exxon used to be Esso. They changed the name to match Richard Nixon so that tells you they are mostly racist and bigots. The work that a person does for an employer should be based on what is required by their position. Who they sleep with should be their own business. People say the Bible is against being gay but I think that is dated. We appear to be living in a world that is divided by people who benefit from the feudal system and those who see the glimmer of the new Age of Enlightenment. Leave hate in the darkness and come into the love and light. Peace, Deborah
Ultimately, this company’s decision is short-sighted, ignorant and smacks of corporate arrogance. The scene in the movie “Philadelphia”‘ where the law firm’s biased, bigoted, and prejudiced CEOs made unfair decisions, imposing their bias based on neanderthal views, comes to mind. But when you have assets.of this magnitude, you can do what you damn well please, even though the majority of the country would agree this will limit the company’s talent pool, not to mention just not being fair and equitable to all employees. Thiis company continues to rake in huge profits year after year, and has a tremendous opportunity to do what is right and fair. NY State Comptroller DiNapoli should be applauded; this is the type of influence that makes a difference.
At end of day, 80 % voted to keep status quo, not do what they SHOULD see as right and just thing to do, especially as one of America’s most successful companies. Federal policy to not contract with those who don’t support all strikes me as only recourse to turn these ignorant moves in a positive direction. After all these years and profits, I don’t see Exxon doing it on its own. It should be held accountable!
We should be protesting about the Gas Prices, maybe there needs to be a IQ test before you protest.
I am an Exxon shareholder. Stocks I inherited from my grandfather, who worked for this company for 40 years. I must say Exxon, as I long time supporter (45 years) I am sadly disappointed in this. Shame on you.
In time, probably sooner than appears likely, ExxonMobil will add sexual orientation and gender identity to its non-discrimination policy. I’ve worked for 30+ years in HR for a couple of Fortune 100 companies. In the last decade, it’s become an accepted fact of business that corporations committed to attracting / retaining the best and brightest employees MUST offer such benefits and protections. In a world where top-level business talent is difficult to find (yes, even in a market like this), employees 40 and under typically won’t consider working for a company that doesn’t offer equal benefits and opportunities to all.
Why? Any form of corporate-endorsed discrimination is a huge red flag that the company isn’t cutting-edge nor forward-thinking. Discriminatory policies exist only in companies mired in the past. Why on Earth would an incredibly talented geologist, engineer, software engineer or other tech specialist want to work for a company that won’t help them keep their skills current which, in turn, keeps the employee marketable. I suspect ExxonMobil’s workforce is aging rapidly and doesn’t have a lot of potential leaders in the pipeline. Such is the cost of hatred.