Discrimination | ENDA | Gay Rights | News

ExxonMobil Shareholders Reject LGBT Nondiscrimination Measure

(image The Dallas Voice)

This should come as a shock to absolutely nobody: oil giant ExxonMobil's shareholders have once again voted down a proposal that would have provided employment discrimination protections to the company's LGBT employees.

The Dallas Voice reports on the outcome of ExxonMobil's yearly shareholders meeting in downtown Dallas:

Shareholders voted to reject a resolution, 81 percent to 19 percent, from the New York state comptroller calling for the company’s Board of Directors to add sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to the oil giant’s EEO policy. The 19 percent support for the resolution reportedly was the lowest ever.

George Wong addressed the shareholders on behalf of the New York State Common Retirement Fund. He presented the business argument that the company should recruit from and retain the widest possible talent pool. Failure to do that leads to less efficient business operations. Most Fortune 500 companies do have inclusive nondiscrimination policies including most other major oil companies, he said.

During general comments, no one else supported the nondiscrimination proposal.

ExxonmobilExxonMobil has the lowest score ever received by a company in the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, meriting a -25 rating for rescinding LGBT discrimination protections and cancelling domestic partner health benefits when Exxon acquired Mobil in 1999.  Other oil companies, such as Chevron, BP, Shell and Spectra, have received scores of 85 or higher.

Last week, Freedom to Work, an LGBT rights organization that focuses on employment issues, filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights alleging that the company engages in discriminatory hiring practices.  In its piece on the complaint, the Huffington Post explained the suit's basic argument:

Jennifer Priston and Michelle Caland are similar in many respects. They both live in Springfield, Ill., attended the same high school and graduated from the same local community college in 2011 after majoring in business administration.

Caland and Priston are also both the inventions of activists, and their fake resumes are now the fodder for a complaint filed against Exxon Mobil, a company gay-rights advocates say is the largest Fortune 500 company to continue to discriminate against gay, lesbian and transgender employees.

On Dec. 4, Freedom to Work, a gay-rights organization that focuses on workplace discrimination, submitted fake resumes for each character for an administrative assistant position at Exxon's Patoka, Ill., office. Only "Caland" got a request for a follow-up interview and activists contend in a complaint filed this week that it's because of one particular item on her resume that set her apart from 'Priston:" Caland volunteered as a secretary for a feminist group, while Priston served as a treasurer for a local chapter of the Victory Fund, a gay-rights organization.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. well, i for one am just flat-out STUNNED that this greedy corrupt planet-destroying company is anti-gay.

    STUNNED, i tells ya!

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | May 29, 2013 2:45:09 PM

  2. Who cares? It's ExxonMobil and if you are still working for them or purchasing from them, you deserve what you are getting. This one's a no-brainer. And HRC corporate equality index is a joke with ZERO teeth to it.

    Posted by: Marc C | May 29, 2013 2:46:49 PM

  3. Agree with Marc. I stay away from ExxonMobil and tell my straight friends and family to do the same.

    Posted by: PE | May 29, 2013 2:59:48 PM

  4. The "teeth" would be provided by a well-publicized, official boycott. Besides those motivated enough to seek out and consult the HRC Corporate Equality Index and those who follow lgbtq news in general, I doubt many are even aware of the depth of this company's homophobia.

    Posted by: Shelly | May 29, 2013 3:01:12 PM

  5. Well, how about this? Shouldn't those of us who can afford it run out and buy shares of ExxonMobil? I'm surprised that this was even put up before shareholders as an issue, rather than simply a company human resources policy decision. But if that's the way they want it, then screw holding "ethical" stocks. Let's band together and buy enough to make our voices really heard there. Capitalism sucks sometimes, but if that's the way to effect change, then let's do it. Keep up the protests and pressure, but also work from within.

    Posted by: MickleSt | May 29, 2013 3:07:08 PM

  6. there's no way to buy enough stocks to do squat about exxon mobil. the only practical thing is to dump them, boycott them, and tell your friends to do the same.

    Posted by: Mike B. | May 29, 2013 3:10:29 PM

  7. Why, exactly do the shareholders get to vote on this?

    Posted by: BearlyBob | May 29, 2013 3:11:01 PM

  8. Kiwi - Then you would need to explain how it was that Mobil Oil, an enormous refiner, wholesaler, and retailer offered domestic partner benefits and had nondiscrimination policy in place long before many other major corporations.

    Chase Bank, which covertly drives up the price of everyone's gasoline through their futures market (officially in London, actually in Atlanta) and is as big a player in oil as Exxon, is consistently rated as one of the best employers for gay people.

    Exxon is clearly out of step and dominated by people who are hostile to gay rights or simply don't care. It does not define the industry.

    Posted by: David Hearne | May 29, 2013 3:17:38 PM

  9. Simply don't get your gas from Exxon or Mobil. Done.

    Posted by: Andy | May 29, 2013 3:20:51 PM

  10. never get my gas from those bastards

    Posted by: disgusted american | May 29, 2013 3:29:03 PM

  11. Simply don't get your gas from Exxon or Mobil. Done.

    Posted by: Andy

    There is a limit of practicality on that. I boycotted Exxon/Mobil for several years after the acquisition of Mobil. IN that time, all the independent gas stations around here were purchased by people I don't want to do business with for bigger reasons than employee benefits. So now I buy from Exxon because it's the only American owned gas station in my town.

    Posted by: David Hearne | May 29, 2013 3:30:00 PM

  12. Don't gas up there!!!

    Posted by: Tom | May 29, 2013 4:08:58 PM

  13. I have not been to an Exxon or a Mobil station in over a decade. Don't buy their gas or anything else they sell.

    Posted by: westcoast88 | May 29, 2013 4:16:44 PM

  14. Hate Exxon. One wonders how the whopping 50.83% institutional investors in Exxon voted.


    Posted by: Rexford | May 29, 2013 4:21:03 PM

  15. The best thing we can do is refuse to buy gasoline any of their gas stations.

    Posted by: Vanity | May 29, 2013 4:28:44 PM

  16. Totally agree with Marc : let's boycott Exxon Mobile.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | May 29, 2013 4:36:14 PM

  17. The votes on this issue take place every year and were actually moving in our direction. We were on track to win.

    Then suddenly, support dropped and is still dropping. What happened? Why was gay civil rights defeated? The same reason it is defeated in Congress. Gay advocates were bullied and browbeaten into adding "gender identity and expression" to the proposal. This was presented as an all or nothing package. Gay civil rights had to die because the most important thing in the world is the workplace bathroom selection issues of heterosexual cross-dressers and heterosexual transsexuals. And it is now verboten to fight for gay workers unless you deal with all manner of crossdresser demands at the very same time and in the very same proposal.

    Well guess what? Exxon shareholders might have been fine with prohibiting discrimination against LGB employees, but at the same time, they may not want to deal with whether the company's female employees will be forced to pee and shower next to dudes or whether the company might be be forced to hire a bearded man in a dress for their corporate receptionist.

    That is why 81% voted against, and I don't blame them.

    Posted by: Becky | May 29, 2013 4:53:32 PM

  18. ExxonMobil just became my favorite company.

    Posted by: Krajci | May 29, 2013 5:08:03 PM

  19. @ Krajci ;
    What are you ? A Serb ? or just another a-hole ?

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | May 29, 2013 5:23:51 PM

  20. umm.. the fact that a company can actually do this in America, is more of a testament to the failure of American employment and human rights laws than anything else.

    Posted by: NorthoftheBorder | May 29, 2013 5:31:03 PM

  21. To "Becky":

    Eff ewe and the transphobic horse that rode in on you.

    We could maybe have a civil discussion about whether it's prudent to seek a whole loaf or three-quarters (GBL or add the T) without resorting to nonsense disgusting language like "bearded man in a dress" and other cross-dresser references.

    If all you transpeople haters had your way, *I* would be forced to be that "bearded man in a dress" or "pantsuit" if I were forced to dress appropriately to my assigned birth sex. I am a GAY transman, and I dare anyone to prevent me from using any men's room anywhere. I daresay the standard issue women would not appreciate my presence in THEIR restroom, nor would I be comfortable being there.

    Everyone can hide their homohatred behind their transhatred and catch a pass because of ppl like you. "Oh, I would have supported it if it was just YOU, but those awful icky people ..."

    Sounds like early 70s feminism and NOW rejecting lesbians. Hmmm?


    Posted by: JakeAZ | May 29, 2013 5:32:03 PM

  22. I think I purchased maybe one tank of gas from ExxonMobil in the last decade or so.

    They don't want my business, so I don't give it to them.

    Posted by: Randy | May 29, 2013 5:54:43 PM

  23. Um, no, Becky, the problem wasn't the T, the problem is Exxon. Many many other corporations have no problem supporting LGBT equality, Exxon does. It's special that way. And out of step with corporate America, which is why anyone (who isn't a gay-obsessed moron like "Krajckers") should drive right by their stations, as many of us have for years since their consistent bigotry is old news.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 29, 2013 5:56:21 PM

  24. I've boycotted Exxon since the Valdez disaster and started boycotting Mobil when Exxon bought them and rescinded Mobil's LGBT protections.

    Posted by: Craig | May 29, 2013 6:37:11 PM

  25. Thank you, Becky, for stating the truth. All the other major oil companies have non-discrimination policies when it comes to sexual orientation, bu, contrary to Ernies
    s claim, NOT according to "gender identity". So we see, yet again, in this instance, that the rights of millions of gay people are being held hostage by activist groups bowing to pressure from gender-confused freaks who are not even gay.

    ENDA, the initiative in Anchorage, this vote......go down the list and you see the same phenomenon. And one should stress that this was a SHAREHOLDER vote, not a management decision, which means that it was a reflection of the opinion of the general population.

    Which just underscores that the entire concept of "gender-non-conformity" is poisonous and is certain to alienate people in the social mainstream.....and until gay people reject that ideology and return our movement to what it traditionally was about and still should be about--plainly and simply, the eradication of homophobia--then losses like this will continue to pile up.

    Indeed, the continuing success in the marriage equality arena contrasting so dramatically by the losses that we are suddenly seeing in the employment non-discrimination area is due to the fact that the marriage issue is devoid of the mud that gender-confused trans freaks being into it, since marriage equality laws don't include them.

    And the filth coming out of the mouth of "Jake" just demonstrates what low-life trash these gender-confused freaks generally are.

    Posted by: Rick | May 29, 2013 6:41:27 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Gender-Bending Crime Fighter Hits Television, Stirs Up Controversy: VIDEO« «