Large companies trading tolerance for risk
Companies that back the proposed legislation can send a clear message about issues of sexual identity. But if the act passes, it raises the risk of lawsuits that businesses could face.
September 24, 2013 at 07:11 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Sometimes, business decisions are clear cut. “Buy low/sell high” is almost universally a good idea. But often, legal decisions in the workplace are murkey, and companies often face a difficult decision when the opportunity to take a moral stance comes into conflict with the bottom line.
Such is the case with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Companies that back the proposed legislation can send a clear message about issues of sexual identity. But if the act passes, it raises the risk of lawsuits that businesses could face.
ENDA is a piece of legislation that would extend federal civil rights protection to a whole new category of individuals. It would protect sexual orientation and gender identity in the same way that race, color, religion, sex, national origin and disability are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
A group that advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, the Human Rights Campaign, supports ENDA, and has assembled a list of companies that have signed letters affirming their support for the act. This coalition of companies includes Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Procter & Gamble and more than 100 other large employers, including recent supporter General Electric.
By joining the coalition, these companies are making a social statement, affirming their commitment to non-discriminatory policies and expanding the concept of workplace diversity. But, from a legal standpoint, ENDA, if passed, would increase the risk that employers could face from litigation.
Many of the companies in the coalition contend that ENDA aligns closely with policies that are already in place. As the chief diversity officer of GE told The Wall Street Journal, “[the] Coalition is endorsing non-discrimination protections that are consistent with our existing workplace policies. We believe the group's work in advocating for these protections communicates our own beliefs, and benefits the company by retaining talent, supporting our recruiting efforts and marketing our consumer products.”
But attorneys caution that companies should not fool themselves into thinking that existing company policies prohibiting discrimination will minimize risk of litigation if ENDA passes.
“Employees violate employer policies every single day and it's those diversions from policy that frequently will cause a problem for the employer,” Monica Minkel, senior vice president for executive protection at Poms & Associates Insurance Brokers told the Journal. “I think the companies that are backing ENDA believe they're doing the right thing and believe this legislation is probably close in line with their own internal policies. However, there will be claims from it, because this does give gay Americans an opportunity to pursue litigation.”
Still, ENDA gives companies a clear opportunity to take a stand. Knowing that support of the bill will increase the potential of lawsuits, businesses that truly believe in workplace diversity can show that they can act on this belief even if it opens them up to more risk. That in and of itself is a bold statement, demonstrating that there is more to business than just the bottom line. People are important, too.
Sometimes, business decisions are clear cut. “Buy low/sell high” is almost universally a good idea. But often, legal decisions in the workplace are murkey, and companies often face a difficult decision when the opportunity to take a moral stance comes into conflict with the bottom line.
Such is the case with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Companies that back the proposed legislation can send a clear message about issues of sexual identity. But if the act passes, it raises the risk of lawsuits that businesses could face.
ENDA is a piece of legislation that would extend federal civil rights protection to a whole new category of individuals. It would protect sexual orientation and gender identity in the same way that race, color, religion, sex, national origin and disability are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
A group that advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, the Human Rights Campaign, supports ENDA, and has assembled
By joining the coalition, these companies are making a social statement, affirming their commitment to non-discriminatory policies and expanding the concept of workplace diversity. But, from a legal standpoint, ENDA, if passed, would increase the risk that employers could face from litigation.
Many of the companies in the coalition contend that ENDA aligns closely with policies that are already in place. As the chief diversity officer of GE told The Wall Street Journal, “[the] Coalition is endorsing non-discrimination protections that are consistent with our existing workplace policies. We believe the group's work in advocating for these protections communicates our own beliefs, and benefits the company by retaining talent, supporting our recruiting efforts and marketing our consumer products.”
But attorneys caution that companies should not fool themselves into thinking that existing company policies prohibiting discrimination will minimize risk of litigation if ENDA passes.
“Employees violate employer policies every single day and it's those diversions from policy that frequently will cause a problem for the employer,” Monica Minkel, senior vice president for executive protection at Poms & Associates Insurance Brokers told the Journal. “I think the companies that are backing ENDA believe they're doing the right thing and believe this legislation is probably close in line with their own internal policies. However, there will be claims from it, because this does give gay Americans an opportunity to pursue litigation.”
Still, ENDA gives companies a clear opportunity to take a stand. Knowing that support of the bill will increase the potential of lawsuits, businesses that truly believe in workplace diversity can show that they can act on this belief even if it opens them up to more risk. That in and of itself is a bold statement, demonstrating that there is more to business than just the bottom line. People are important, too.
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
© 2025 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
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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