Beyond Marriage Equality — LGBT Employees in the Workplace
In this series, professionals predict the ideas and trends that will shape 2016. Read the posts here, then write your own (use #BigIdeas2016 in your piece).
2015 is a year that will go down in history as a turning point in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights movement in the U.S. The Supreme Court’s decision on Obergefell v. Hodges guaranteed every American the right to marry the person they love, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The last vestiges of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell were finally banished: the Pentagon announced that, beginning in 2016, transgender personnel will be able to serve openly in the military alongside their gay colleagues.
But, despite these exciting and important victories, there is still a critical zone in which LGBT individuals face significant hurdles on the path to inclusion: employment. Protections for LGBT employees in the U.S. are still distressingly piecemeal. In 28 out of 50 states, it is still legal to fire someone based solely on their sexual orientation, and in 31 states, including my home state of New York, it is legal to fire a transgender employee.
This lack of protections will be a major focus in 2016 as there are serious consequences for both LGBT employees and for companies. Take Eli Lilly, for example. The pharmaceutical megalith found themselves facing a talent crisis when, at the end of March 2015, the Indiana state legislature passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The law greatly expanded the right of individuals and organizations to secure religious exemptions from state and local laws — including non-discrimination laws — and was widely condemned as intentionally targeting the LGBT community. “This legislation is bad for Indiana and for business,” said Janice Chavers, a spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which is headquartered in Indiana and employs over 11,000 personnel in the state. “We search for top talent all over the world, and many of those individuals won’t want to come to a state with laws that discriminate.” The global drug giant — and several other private sector organizations — flexed their market muscle by denouncing the legislation and ensuring that customer-facing businesses did not legally deny their goods and services to same-sex couples. The subsequent move by state governors to revise the legislation at break-neck speed was a stunning testament to the ability of the private sector to affect change.
Now more than ever, companies like Eli Lilly are realizing that the fight for LGBT rights has serious impact on two key fronts: talent and consumers. As the Center for Talent Innovation (CTI) found in our 2013 study, The Power of Out 2.0, more than three-quarters of LGBT job seekers (77%) say that they evaluate companies based on their LGBT-friendly benefits. Seventy percent look at a company’s reputation in the LGBT community before accepting an offer of employment.
The impact goes far beyond LGBT employees. With corporate rankings like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Corporate Equality Index accessibly and widely publicized, choosing an LGBT-supportive company over less friendly competitors is easier than ever — and both talent and consumers are doing just that. In fact, a report published by DiversityInc revealed that 78% of LGBT consumers and their friends say they’d switch brands to support LGBT-friendly companies. That’s a market of over $884 billion in the U.S. alone, and unsupportive companies and states are losing out.
So what can companies do in 2016 to demonstrate they are LGBT-supportive?
- Become an Inclusivity Role Model. Companies can lead by example to make the workplace a safe place for LGBT employees to flourish. Many companies are already far ahead of the curve in instituting protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity: 89 percent of the Fortune 500 already prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is still room for improvement, however. Companies can up the ante by calling on senior leaders to role model inclusive behaviors and enforce anti-discrimination policies within the workplace.
- Advocate for Equality. Companies can also begin flexing corporate muscle to exert their influence on the political and culture outside their walls. We’ve already seen successful templates for this kind of corporate advocacy in Indiana and Arkansas, where pressure from the corporate sector was instrumental in pushing through revisions to those states’ RFRA bills that prevent LGBT discrimination.
-
Go Global.
Multinational companies are on the frontlines of this issue all over the world, not just in the US. Beginning in 2016, the new HRC criteria for pro-LGBT multinationals will include a global anti-discrimination policy — not just country-specific protections. Navigating uncertain legal and cultural waters is no easy task, but CTI’s upcoming report, Out in the World, seeks to address this thorny issue. Written in conjunction with NYU law professor and LGBT rights expert Kenji Yoshino, Out in the World examines best practices for pro-LGBT corporations across 10 key markets. Read this groundbreaking new report in January 2016.
SCM Import/Export and Enablement Assistant chez VODACOM CONGO (RDC) S.A
8 年La fin du temps
> >> The intent of the law was to ensure Christians were not silenced, >> not to silence Christians. > hmmm... a very interesting interpretation of the first amendment, but as 200 years of legal precedent concerning the matter make quite clear, Christianity has no "special" legal standing in Constitutional Law. No one is looking to "silence Christians", they are to have an equal standing and voice in such matters alongside other religious and nonreligious voices. The First Amendment, however, is very specific in this matter: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof As such it states quite clearly that *no* religious view shall be promoted above another. You have stated that "love does not deviate from common sense" and In this I fully concur. I do not, however, see that love between two consenting adult does deviate from common sense. Over time, and through out history, I have seen that anger, hatred, ignorance, and bigotry *have* deviated form common sense but never love. Love has brought so many together, it has illuminated the world with so much beauty, that I cannot see it as anything but a positive force. The concept that "the human anatomy is blatantly advertising only a union between the two sexes is wise" is just another form of an argument that has been used so many times in the past. Differences in color, differences in race, differences in culture, differences in religion have been used to suggest that one form of human interaction or another is "unnatural". It is quite well established that evolution has bifurcated the human race into the male and female genders. It has also produced localized adaptations to environment that have resulted in what we describe as race. In the past differences in race have been used to suggest that "race is blatantly advertising only union within ones race is wise". There are, however, many that do not believe that this is "common sense" and there seems little reason to think that gender is relevant either. You have many other arguments, but the bottom line is that no one is suggesting that you, and others, are not free to be Christian. That said, this is a free society, not a Christian society... this is a free nation, not a Christian society. Christians are free to believe as they wish, I am free to believe as I wish, Muslims are free to believe as they wish, Jews are free to believe as they wish. There shall NOT, however, be any forms of legal discrimination. Finally, I find your arguments have become repetitive, and are without basic merit. They appear to be based on Christian beliefs that I do not share and that have no place in Constitutional Law. As I have said before, you follow your path and I shall follow mine. May your path bring you that which you seek in this world.
> >> So you have a lying president who overruled the will of the people > Actually, it is not the province of the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold "the will of the people". The responsibility of this institution is to be the appellate court for rulings on constitutional questions. As such it is specifically designed to be insulated from the "will of the people" through the mechanisms of presidential appointment, senatorial approval, and lifetime tenure for its members. These mechanisms where spelled specifically in the constitution in order to allow prominent legal scholars to consider constitutional questions dispassionately. As has been well documented, the question brought before the Supreme Court in "Obergefell v. Hodges" concerned the question of whether the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In addition, the court considered the nature of fundamental rights that are guaranteed to all by the Constitution as well as the harm done to individuals through the delay of the implementation of those rights while democratic process "plays out". This last part shows the importance of removing the court from the "will of the people" as it must weight their "rights" against the "rights" of the individual. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that state level same-sex marriage bans are a violation of both the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause. In its ruling the Court noted that "the relationship between the liberty of the Due Process Clause and the equality of the Equal Protection Clause and determined that same-sex marriage bans violated the latter." It concluded that the liberty and equality of same-sex couples was significantly burdened by the enforcement of same-sex marriage bans. Now some may see all the lies and conspiracies they wish, many on the losing side often do in such matters, but the result has strong legal merit.