Discrimination | News

ExxonMobil Shareholders Reject LGBT Employment Protections


ExxonMobil shareholders have once again rejected a proposal to add gay and transgender employees to the Irving-based corporation’s nondiscrimination policy, the Dallas Voice reports:

Meeting at the Meyerson Symphony Center in the Dallas Arts District, the ExxonMobil shareholders voted 80 percent to 20 percent 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 80-20 margin of defeat was one of the largest in recent memory for the proposal, which has been introduced each year since Mobil and Exxon merged in 1999. The percentage of shareholders voting for the policy had increased steadily over the years to about 40 percent, before dropping off significantly after gender identity was added in 2008.

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 But ExxonMobil rescinded those policies after the merger.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. "The T will always be a part of us good or bad."

    The vast majority of gay people would reject that statement. Men who believe themselves to be heterosexual women are not gay. Neither are men who want to dress like women. Not in any way, shape, or form.

    And the majority of gay people are sick and tired of being lumped in with such people and having their own movement destroyed in the process--and sick of the radical activists who are responsible for such and the twisted ideology they represent.

    I hope that when payback finally comes, it comes with a vengeance.

    Posted by: Rick | May 30, 2012 5:58:48 PM

  2. Who's surprised? This company is based in Texas. It might as well be based in Iran. No offence to Iranians.

    Posted by: Robbie | May 30, 2012 6:12:34 PM

  3. Why is 'gender identity' included in a policy that should only be about banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? That is idiotic. There is never any reason to throw in other irrelevant demographic characteristics when passing civil rights laws or policies. Exxon Mobil would almost certainly have passed a non-discrimination rule banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation years ago if someone had not added this irrelevant category of gender identity.

    Posted by: DB | May 30, 2012 6:14:17 PM

  4. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have passed if it had included 'sexual orientation' in addition to 'race'. There is absolutely no reason to include 'gender identity', 'handedness', or any other irrelevant demographic characteristics in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). ENDA, if it includes gender identity, is a bad law. ENDA with just sexual orientation (and disability or other less controversial characteristics) is the single most important remaining civil rights law that we need to pass, except for the repeal of the anti-marriage act DOMA.

    Posted by: DB | May 30, 2012 6:20:29 PM

  5. How do you know the majority of gay men feel that way? Please post the poll. DB you do not know if it would have passed, no one could
    What payback are you waiting for?

    Posted by: GeorgeM | May 30, 2012 6:28:38 PM

  6. In addition to being unfocused and bad policy, there are at least two very concrete reasons NOT to include gender identity or any other potentially controversial demographic characteristic in ENDA (or an Exxon Mobil policy). Firstly, having an extraneous characteristic can slow down passage of law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is critical that we pass these laws quickly without introducing a controversy or 'poison pill'. Secondly, by including 'gender identity' as an item in a bill that is meant to only refer to 'sexual orientation' (and possibly race, religion, sex, or disability), there is a potential of confusing people about the nature of sexual orientation. A major lie or stereotype of homophobic bigots is that they believe gay men are somehow less masculine than heterosexual men and gay women are somehow less feminine than heterosexual women. Although this stereotype about gay people is false, there are some homophobes who do not understand that. Gay people do not in any way want to be or be like the opposite sex, we can just fall in love with someone of the same sex. There is no logical basis for this lie, but it exists and I think having any policy that mentions 'gender identity' near 'sexual orientation' might make some people think there is some relationship between sexual orientation and gender identity. Gay people and heterosexual people are the SAME except for the fact that we can be romantically attracted to someone of the same sex. That is is the whole point of the entire gay civil rights movement and the conclusion of all research into sexual orientation.

    Posted by: DB | May 30, 2012 6:47:23 PM

  7. I just became aware of this issue. Not another dime to this backward corporation.

    Posted by: tropicbill | May 30, 2012 6:54:26 PM

  8. Georgem, according to public polling, over 80% of Americans believe that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment should be illegal. The percentage who believe that about gender identity is closer to 30%. Polls of gay people have shown that over 70% of openly gay people believe we should pass ENDA in its original form (with sexual orientation included, and without gender identity added). Representative Barney Frank, possibly that most important gay civil rights activist, has said that ENDA would have passed in its original form if it hadn't been sabotaged by anti-gay folks who added gender identity. Please read this excellent blog post on the subject: http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/10/enda-gay-rights.html .

    Posted by: DB | May 30, 2012 6:56:21 PM

  9. Well DB I would suggest you get your a$$ in congress and re write the law because in includes "T". On a side note... You sure you're not Rick?

    When the law passes it may not include T, I don't see it passing anytime soon. It's seen as an over step of power, all categories are seen that way. Conservitive law makers on both sides agree that government should not be making laws like this. Hate crimes is another one. Personally I would be fine getting rid of All hate crime categories, religion going first.
    The movement is not going to separate and I think you know that

    Posted by: GeorgeM | May 30, 2012 7:06:57 PM

  10. Does it have the polls in it?

    Posted by: GeorgeM | May 30, 2012 7:14:40 PM

  11. Not only do gender-confused trannies make us gay men look like fools, it's because of them that my father forced me to dress like a girl when I used to blow him when all I ever wanted as his son was to be able to blow him while wearing his old football uniform. Pathetic stereotypical queens and feminists are the reason I never got to fellate him in men's attire, and I'll never forgive you queens for that.

    Posted by: Rick | May 30, 2012 7:21:15 PM

  12. Ok I'll concede that that's what the blog said and maybe what happened. But it doesn't change it for me as a person, I just disagree that we should dismantle. Maybe on this you're right, I'm gonna read some of his other stuff. I just don't see it changing

    Posted by: GeorgeM | May 30, 2012 7:26:13 PM

  13. To quote Chris Crain: "Since 1994, the whole point of ENDA was to zero in on the most narrowly achievable, incremental progress. Protection based on sexual orientation in the workplace was correctly viewed as having the greatest political support." Banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, and promotion is not seen as an overstep of power; over 80% of Americans support it. History has taught that only through focused and incremental progress can equality ever be achieved. We've made huge progress in the past few years and we definitely will make more (obviously we need to focus on helping Democrats gain the majority in the House to accomplish this).

    Posted by: DB | May 30, 2012 7:28:35 PM

  14. I don't think we'll get the house and I'm worried about the senate
    What's your take?

    It is an over step in the minds of those who vote. Conservitive voters in congress see it as not needed and a power grab by the government. If they trully listened to the 80% we would have had it by now but we continue to put the same people in congress, even as districts become more and more gay friendly.

    I guess for me knowing Trans people and calling them friend I can't leave them behind.

    Posted by: GeorgeM | May 30, 2012 7:44:28 PM

  15. I wonder if all that porn sold in exxon gas stations is straight and share holder approved?

    Posted by: Reformed | May 30, 2012 9:26:35 PM

  16. I wonder if all that porn sold in exxon gas stations is straight and share holder approved?

    Posted by: Reformed | May 30, 2012 9:26:37 PM

  17. There is an Exxon gas station on Lemmon Ave near the "gay area" of Dallas called Oak Lawn. There are usually cars with HRC stickers on them filling up at that Exxon. I can't understand how seemingly social-conscious gays can take convenience over doing what is right.

    Posted by: Chris | May 30, 2012 9:44:50 PM

  18. The last RICK comment was by KIWI the shark-shi# guttersnipe who snipes from the gutter. Newby's beware of this salacious and cowardly creep.

    Posted by: UFFDA | May 31, 2012 12:09:55 AM

  19. My Mobil Speed Pass is going right down the toilet.

    Posted by: David in Long Beach | May 31, 2012 12:12:07 AM

  20. I've been boycotting them for years. Exxon has been blatantly discriminating for years - I wrote a letter to their CEO back in the 90s regarding their rescinding of Mobil's non-discrimination policy. The reply I got was basically "tough *&^%, we don't care about you."
    Then there's the Alaska debacle. They are one evil corporation. I'm certain that my boycott doesn't concern them, but we can fight in Congress, the courts, etc.

    Posted by: John | May 31, 2012 10:01:19 AM

  21. They met in the Dallas Arts District? Ironic?

    Posted by: wimsy | May 31, 2012 4:24:40 PM

  22. Please boycott Exxon Mobil, Phillips Conoco (76), and BP/ Arco. These companies do not deserve our money.

    Posted by: DB | Jun 1, 2012 12:42:16 PM

  23. It's all about choice (well, a little about faith and belief, too). Everyone makes choices. When you try and meet someone new, and are successful, you choose whether you will go home with them, or not (that is, if they consent to it). So then, the choice becomes simple; do I choose a guy or a girl?

    The whole LGBT issue has NOTHING to do with discrimination, and EVERYTHING to do with choice. But then, I guess it's all about what we believe to be true about it. Is it behavioral or societal (ingrained vs. learned)? If Evolution is true, then it must be a learned behavior, or else it would cease to exist, as it does nothing to contribute to, or promote, the survival of the species.

    You can push your "agenda", but it's all a farce. I accept you for who you are. I prefer to be hetero. However, I don't force my choice upon you. Why should your choice be forced upon me by my employer? All Exxon Mobil is doing is acknowledging that 80% of their ownership agrees that the LGBT issue is a matter of choice, not pre-determination. So, buy gas somewhere else, and deal with it.

    Posted by: Jane | Jul 11, 2012 1:52:17 AM

  24. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «Gay Couple of 48 Years Sues for Freedom to Marry in Illinois: VIDEO« «