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
© 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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
- 2Solana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
- 3What We Heard From Litigation Leaders This Year
- 4What's Next For Johnson & Johnson's Talcum Powder Litigation?
- 5The Legal's Top 5 Pennsylvania Verdicts of 2024
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