Big Law Outpaces Big Biz for LGBTQ Equality
Law firms were more more likely than other big businesses to earn perfect scores on the Human Rights Campaign's latest survey of how employers treat their LGBT workforce.
November 09, 2017 at 04:27 PM
9 minute read
Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/NLJ
The country's biggest law firms continue to outperform corporate America in their level of support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer employees.
Of the 160 large firms that participated in this year's Corporate Equality Index, released Thursday by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 127 received perfect scores, up from 112 last year.
“The highly competitive legal field continues to be the sector with the largest number of top-rated employers in the Corporate Equality Index,” said Deena Fidas, the director of the HRC Foundation's Workplace Equality Program, in a statement. The HRC is the nation's largest LGBTQ civil rights organization.
Four additional Am Law 200 firms participated this year: Bass, Berry & Sims; Fox Rothschild; Ice Miller; and Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren.
Another 10 firms scored 95 out of 100, while six earned scores of 90 and another 11 earned scores of 85. Only six firms received a score of 80 or below.
“Law firm leaders know that the LGBTQ inclusion is absolutely essential in attracting and retaining top attorneys and staff,” Fidas said.
Compared with the 79 percent of participating law firms, just under half of Fortune 500 companies, 230, achieved a 100 percent ranking—up from 199 companies last year.
The survey, which is voluntary, evaluates the nation's largest companies and top-grossing law firms, the Am Law 100 and 200, in four areas: nondiscrimination policies based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression; equitable benefits for LGBTQ workers and their families; LGBTQ education and inclusion programs; and public treatment of the LGBTQ community.
For firms not scoring 100, the most common area by far where they lost points was in not offering transgender-inclusive health insurance. Of the 33 firms scoring less than 100, 19 did not meet that criterion, which is worth 10 points.
Even so, 88 percent of the 160 firms in the survey offer transgender-inclusive health insurance, compared with 58 percent of Fortune 500-ranked companies.
Other areas where firms lost points were not having a firmwide “organizational competency” program (10 points), not having an employee resource group or firmwide diversity council (10 points, or prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation but not on gender identity or expression (15 points).
The HRC Foundation started out assessing the basics in 2002, seeing whether companies had nondiscrimination policies. It has progressively placed more emphasis on employee benefits, adding transgender-inclusive health care coverage in 2004. It added organizational competency and public commitment to LGBT issues in 2009.
Two years ago the HRC Foundation started rating businesses on whether they extend nondiscrimination protections to their operations outside the United States, and whether they require outside vendors to follow those policies. It also started looking at whether businesses refuse to donate to groups (except religious organizations) that don't have written anti-discrimination policies for sexual orientation and gender identity.
Read the full report, along with law firm rankings, here.
Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/NLJ
The country's biggest law firms continue to outperform corporate America in their level of support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer employees.
Of the 160 large firms that participated in this year's Corporate Equality Index, released Thursday by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 127 received perfect scores, up from 112 last year.
“The highly competitive legal field continues to be the sector with the largest number of top-rated employers in the Corporate Equality Index,” said Deena Fidas, the director of the HRC Foundation's Workplace Equality Program, in a statement. The HRC is the nation's largest LGBTQ civil rights organization.
Four additional
Another 10 firms scored 95 out of 100, while six earned scores of 90 and another 11 earned scores of 85. Only six firms received a score of 80 or below.
“Law firm leaders know that the LGBTQ inclusion is absolutely essential in attracting and retaining top attorneys and staff,” Fidas said.
Compared with the 79 percent of participating law firms, just under half of Fortune 500 companies, 230, achieved a 100 percent ranking—up from 199 companies last year.
The survey, which is voluntary, evaluates the nation's largest companies and top-grossing law firms, the
For firms not scoring 100, the most common area by far where they lost points was in not offering transgender-inclusive health insurance. Of the 33 firms scoring less than 100, 19 did not meet that criterion, which is worth 10 points.
Even so, 88 percent of the 160 firms in the survey offer transgender-inclusive health insurance, compared with 58 percent of Fortune 500-ranked companies.
Other areas where firms lost points were not having a firmwide “organizational competency” program (10 points), not having an employee resource group or firmwide diversity council (10 points, or prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation but not on gender identity or expression (15 points).
The HRC Foundation started out assessing the basics in 2002, seeing whether companies had nondiscrimination policies. It has progressively placed more emphasis on employee benefits, adding transgender-inclusive health care coverage in 2004. It added organizational competency and public commitment to LGBT issues in 2009.
Two years ago the HRC Foundation started rating businesses on whether they extend nondiscrimination protections to their operations outside the United States, and whether they require outside vendors to follow those policies. It also started looking at whether businesses refuse to donate to groups (except religious organizations) that don't have written anti-discrimination policies for sexual orientation and gender identity.
Read the full report, along with law firm rankings, here.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250