SCOTUS affirmative action decision's impact

SCOTUS affirmative action decision's impact on corporate America

Eleanor Hawkins Erin Doherty

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

Any day now, the Supreme Court is expected to rule in favor of rolling back affirmative action at universities, and the decision could have a domino effect on corporate diversity initiatives.

Why it matters: If overturned, corporate hiring and recruiting practices could be next to land in the crosshairs.

Catch up quick: The high court is weighing whether colleges can explicitly consider applicants' race in admissions.

• Those in favor believe affirmative action is critical for ensuring diversity, while opponents believe it discriminates against white and Asian students.

The big picture: Some conservative organizations have already begun to apply the discriminatory argument to U.S. companies.

• America First Legal has filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and asked for an investigation into the hiring practices of such companies as BlackRock, Morgan Stanley, McDonald's, Starbucks, Twilio, Hershey and Kontoor Brands.
• "[Companies] should expect some litigation as an outcome based on what we think may happen," Valerie Capers Workman, chief legal officer for recruiting platform Handshake, told Axios. "That doesn't mean that the litigation will have merit, but it does mean that companies will probably have to spend some money defending claims that they otherwise would not have."

State of play: According to HR Dive, all Fortune 100 companies have publicly championed DEI commitments.

• HR, communications and in-house counsel Axios spoke with say they are monitoring the case closely and are preparing messaging based on the scope of the ruling.
• "One of the lessons from the Dobbs decision is that it's very hard in the immediate aftermath of a divisive decision to have a communication that doesn't appear to be taking one side or the other," a communications professional in the financial services industry told Axios.
• "No matter what the decision is, we're going to feel the same way about how important DEI is to us as a firm, so communicating that to internal stakeholders is the priority, and that can be done in advance of the decision."

Between the lines: Companies could see an uptick in reverse discrimination claims from employees if the Supreme Court rules against race-conscious admissions, Andrew Turnbull, a partner at Morrison Foerster, told Axios.

• "When people hear affirmative action has been overruled, they may say, 'Well, why is my company still doing diversity programs?'" Turnbull, who represents companies on labor and employment litigation, said.

🥊 Reality check: According to a Harvard study, U.S. states that eliminated affirmative action hiring requirements have seen a significant decrease in workplace diversity, compared to the states that kept affirmative action programs in place.

• Asian female, Black female and Hispanic male workers were most impacted by the statewide affirmative action bans, the report found.

What they're saying: Now is not the time to shy away from diversity initiatives, said Libi Rice, chief communications officer of the Executive Leadership Council, a nonprofit focused on advancing opportunities for Black executives.

• "This is an opportunity for companies to look at where they are right now, in terms of their recruiting of Black talent, where they're looking for Black talent, what they're doing to retain Black talent in their organizations, and to make sure that they continue to be authentic in their actions and continue to push forward, as opposed to letting a ruling like this shake them," said Rice.

• "Companies do not invest in DEI to favor a certain group of individuals over another group of individuals," said Aniela Unguresan, founder and CEO of Edge Certification. "Companies invest because diverse, equitable and inclusive workplaces are more agile, more resilient and are sustainably more successful than organizations [that] do less of those investments."

What we're watching: Much depends on the decision itself, its scope and the precedent it sets for lawsuits that could follow.

• There will be political ramifications following the decision, but it could also present an opportunity for chief diversity officers to expand their responsibilities and reframe the DEI function.
• "A lot of professionals are looking at changing the titles of diversity officer to chief workforce transformation officer— and in some ways, it's a positive outcome, because it could mean that the DEI role could be expanded," Capers Workman said. "It could be a larger, more encompassing role that encompasses not just diversity initiatives, but also the entire workforce culture."
• Plus, the ruling may spur some companies to actually bolster their DEI initiatives, Turnball said.
• "Not that they're looking to do anything unlawful, but I think you will see some companies double-down on their diversity initiatives and say, 'We believe in this, we don't care what the states are doing, we don't care what the Supreme Court is doing.'"
• What the End of Affirmative Action Means for Business
  
  
  
  
  By the end of June, legal experts predict, the US Supreme Court will ban race-based admissions in higher education. It will be a concussive, though not fatal,
  blow to affirmative action’s corporate cousin: diversity, equity and inclusion.
  
  
  
  The U.S. Supreme Court.Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
  
  Kelsey Butler
  June 22, 2023 
  
  The decision comes as companies are already caught in the crossfire of the culture wars, whether it’s a consumer boycott of a popular brand of beer or Republican-led states refusing to work with financial institutions that follow environmental, social and governance investing principles. With the court’s ruling, DEI could soon replace ESG as conservatives’ most-loathed acronym.

  
  
  Bud Light was the target of a recent consumer boycott over a personalized can of beer given to a transgender influencer.
  Photographer: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
  
  The Supreme Court, which will actually rule on two cases—one centered on Harvard College and the other on the University of North Carolina—could scrap precedents dating back decades. A landmark 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke had barred the use of quotas yet allowed race to be considered as one of many factors in admissions. The court’s rationale wasn’t to correct racism’s legacy but to ensure a diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints in classrooms.
  
  When demographers soon after predicted that entrants into the labor market would be mostly women and minorities by 2000, diversity became the goal—and mantra—that academia and corporations have cited to cope with a changing applicant pool and to justify admissions and hiring decisions.
  
  At the same time, conservative resistance has grown. In the Harvard case, opponents argue that diversity provided cover for discriminating against Asian American applicants. DEI advocates predict companies will be next to face hostility. “Corporate America’s looking at that and saying, ‘first they came for academia, next they’ll come for us,’ ” says Janet Stovall, global head of DEI at the NeuroLeadership Institute, a leadership coaching firm.
  
  For companies, the ripple effects of the ruling could be immediate, beginning with declines in minority student enrollment. After California’s 1996 Proposition 209 barred racial preferences—one of nine states with such bans—the number of Black freshmen at the University of California’s most selective campuses fell by half in the fall of 1998, when the ban took effect. In some cases, those numbers haven’t recovered.
  
  As a result, fewer people from underrepresented groups will make their way into jobs and management roles. Almost 70 employers, including General Electric, Google and JetBlue Airways, warned in a brief to the court that without affirmative action they’ll lose access to “a pipeline of highly qualified future workers and business leaders” and will struggle to meet diversity hiring goals.
  
  Looking simply at the letter of the law, the court’s decision won’t apply to employers. Private institutions such as Harvard are governed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination in programs receiving federal funding. Private-sector workplaces, however, are governed by Title VII—a different, though similarly worded, section. Still, “many of the thought processes and the basic legal principles” are the same, says Daniel Pyne III, an employment specialist at law firm Hopkins & Carley. If the court strikes down race-conscious admissions in education, “that is a strong hint that the same decision might be made” in employment cases.
  
  What else will this potential decision mean for the business world? Read more, including profiles of six people who say affirmative action helped their lives or needs to end.

  
  

Opinion: The Canadian wildfires should be a wake-up call to us all

Abby Drey/adrey@centredaily.com  PENNSYLVANIA

Lydia Shen
Fri, June 23, 2023

Like many other Centre County residents, I stepped out of my house a couple weeks ago to find my neighborhood engulfed in a pale gray haze and a strange, smoky smell.

But there was no mistaking this scene for someone’s backyard cookout gone wrong. I was standing amid smoke caused by Canadian wildfires hundreds of miles to the north, drifting into central Pennsylvania and creating such dire air pollution that state officials issued a rare Code Red alert — meaning that the air quality was unhealthy for the general public.

Mother Nature is sending us an unequivocal message, and we must heed her warning: If we fail to mitigate climate change, we will continue to grapple with its consequences in the years to come. These recent wildfires are just one example. Rising temperatures cause droughts, dry air and more frequent lightning strikes, creating the perfect conditions for an entire forest to ignite. These events put both humans and wildlife alike in harm’s way — experts believe that spending 24 hours outside in some of Canada’s recent air quality conditions can cause the equivalent lung damage of smoking up to nearly 11 cigarettes. This year’s wildfire season alone has displaced more than 20,000 Canadians, a number that will only rise from here on out.

The ongoing growth in global temperatures, if left unchecked, will come with a host of other concerns besides wildfires. Coastal damage due to ice cap melting and sea level rise. Intense hurricanes and tropical storms wreaking havoc on vulnerable communities. Heat waves worse than the ones that swept across the U.S. last year, and ecosystems completely upended as natural habitats are destroyed. And living through all of this, forced to bear the consequences of our current inaction, will be each of us — regardless of where you live or what you believe in.

My generation is watching. We are watching as biospheres are damaged for pure economic benefit, as the scope of the Clean Water Act is drastically limited and precious natural resources are sacrificed in the name of profit. We are alarmed, and we are certainly not impressed. On an individual level, it may be easy to write off the environmental consequences of your own actions. But when many people do so, across towns, counties and nations, the effects will be felt. By continuing to dispel greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at the present rate, we only enable and encourage more wildfires, more hurricanes, and more heat waves.

Climate change is here, and it’s here now. It will only get worse if we don’t set our priorities straight. My personal mantra is think globally, act locally. Look at the big picture, and take the extra step to sort your recyclables, compost in your garden, or buy from the local farmers market. Turn off that light switch, visit the thrift shop down the street, and consider investing in an electric car. The average U.S. citizen has an annual carbon footprint of 16 tons, and by making just one of these simple changes, you can reduce that amount by up to 1.95 tons. In doing so, you’ll be shaping a better future for the next generation to live in.

These are not the first wildfires we’ve encountered, and they certainly won’t be the last. But let them be a warning sign, a reality check. There is no plan B — no planet B. This is the only earth we have been given, and we must do everything we can to protect it.

Lydia Shen is a senior at State College Area High School, where she is co-president of the Environmental Club and president of Ocean Bowl.

Church of England to disinvest from fossil fuels this year

A Church of England logo is seen during the Candlemas Festival Eucharist service at Ripon Cathedral in Ripon

Reuters
Thu, June 22, 2023 

LONDON (Reuters) - The Church of England Pensions Board said it had decided to divest its holding in Shell over what it said were insufficient plans to align its strategy to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The Board, which up to 2022 led engagement with Shell on behalf of the CA100+ climate-focussed investor group, has around 1.35 million pounds ($1.72 million) invested in Shell of its total 3.2 billion pounds in investments.

The Church of England's separate 10.3 billion pound Church Commissioners fund will also divest from all remaining oil and gas companies in its portfolio, including Shell, BP, Equinor and TotalEnergies, it said on Thursday.

"The Church will follow not just the science, but our faith – both of which call us to work for climate justice," Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said in a statement.

The Pensions Board said in its statement it would no longer prioritise engagement with the oil and gas sector on climate change and would instead refocus its efforts on reshaping the demand for oil and gas from sectors such as the auto industry.

Shell aims to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 and has set several short and medium-term emission intensity targets, but has so far rejected calls to set 2030 goals to reduce absolute emissions.

Scientists say the world needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 43% from 2019 levels by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

A Shell spokesperson said the Church funds' decisions were "disappointing, but not surprising", adding Shell believed it was Paris-aligned.

"At the same time, we are clearly focused on capital discipline, enhanced performance and delivering shareholder value," the Shell spokesperson said.

This year, the Board voted against Shell's chair and directors over climate concerns and in favour of an activist shareholder resolution asking Shell to set Paris-aligned emissions targets for 2030, which received 20% support.

($1 = 0.7839 pounds)

(Reporting by Shadia Nasrall and Muvija M; Editing by Jan Harvey)

Church of England dumps all oil and gas investments

Phil HAZLEWOOD
Thu, June 22, 2023 

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said oil and giants had made some progress in energy transition 'but not nearly enough' (JUSTIN TALLIS)

Campaigners on Thursday hailed a move by the Church of England to exclude all oil and gas majors from its investment portfolio because of climate concerns.

The body that manages the Church's £10.3-billion ($13.1-billion) endowment fund excluded 20 companies from its list of financial assets two years ago.

It has now extended the ban to 11 more, including BP, ExxonMobil, Shell and TotalEnergies, after assessing that none was meeting the goals of the 2015 UN climate accord to tackle global warming.

"With the 2021 exclusions and those announced today, the Church Commissioners (for England) will have excluded all oil and gas majors," it said.


"The broader exclusion of all oil and gas exploration, production and refining companies will follow by the end of 2023."

The Church of England Pensions Board announced separately that it, too, would disinvest from fossil fuels.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, a former oil company executive who leads the worldwide Anglican Communion of affiliated churches, said Christians had "a duty to protect God's creation".

"Energy companies have a special responsibility to help us achieve the just transition to the low-carbon economy we need," he added.

"Some progress has been made, but not nearly enough. The Church will follow not just the science, but our faith –- both of which call us to work for climate justice."

First Church Estates Commissioner Alan Smith said the decision to divest "was not taken lightly" but energy majors had been too slow to act.

- Campaign -

The announcement came as the Church's national assembly, the General Synod, comprising hundreds of lay members and clergy, prepares to convene in early July.

In 2018, the body set a five-year strategy to invest in climate solutions, engage with high carbon-emitting companies, and disinvest from fossil fuel firms not aligned with the Paris accord.

The agreement saw countries agree to cap global warming at "well below" 2.0 Celsius above average levels measured between 1850 and 1900 -- and 1.5C if possible.

The Church's National Investing Bodies are due to report back to the upcoming synod in York, northern England, on progress meeting the plan.

Last week, more than 200 clergy, including 10 bishops, sent an open letter to the commissioners and the pensions body calling for "fossil-free" pensions.

The 42 Church of England dioceses have their own investments but according to Operation Noah, a Christian climate charity, more than half have pledged to exclude those linked to fossil fuels.

Operation Noah chair Darrell Hannah said Thursday's announcement "should send shockwaves around the world".

Hannah said it should show that oil and gas majors "are not operating in good faith and not preparing for the global transition to renewable energy".

"We trust that today's announcement... will encourage many others to divest from fossil fuels and invest in climate solutions," he added.

- 'Lost faith' -

Oil and gas majors have been frequent targets for climate activists for not doing enough to move from polluting fossil fuels towards cleaner alternatives such as renewables.

Energy giants have been accused of stalling on their commitments because of strong demand for fossil fuels, which has given them bumper profits.

The Church of England Pensions Board in May joined other minority shareholders in voting against Shell's "green" transition plan, and called for more ambitious carbon-cutting targets.

Friends of the Earth's divestment campaigner Rianna Gargiulo said she hoped Thursday's announcement could spur institutional investors such as local councils, pension funds and universities to follow suit.

Greenpeace called it a "moment of moral reckoning" for other investors and the government.

"After years of trying to change these companies from within, the Church of England has clearly lost faith in Shell and other oil giants' ability to redeem themselves," it added.

phz/rfj/lth

Rules allow transgender woman at Wyoming chapter, and a court can't interfere, sorority says


Two people walk on the University of Wyoming campus in Laramie, Wyo. Sorority rules allow a transgender woman to belong to its University of Wyoming chapter and a court can't interfere with that, a sorority being sued over the matter says in seeking the lawsuit’s dismissal. The Kappa Kappa Gamma motion to dismiss, filed Tuesday, June 20, 2023. in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne, is the sorority's first substantive response to the lawsuit, other than a March statement by its executive director, Kari Kittrell Poole, that the complaint contains “numerous false allegations.” 

(Shannon Broderick/Laramie Boomerang via AP, FIle) 

MEAD GRUVER
Wed, June 21, 2023 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A national sorority has defended allowing a transgender woman into its University of Wyoming chapter, saying in a new court motion that the chapter followed sorority rules despite a lawsuit from seven women in the organization who argued the opposite.

Seven members of Kappa Kappa Gamma at Wyoming's only four-year state university sued in March, saying the sorority violated its own rules by admitting Artemis Langford last year. Six of the women refiled the lawsuit in May after a judge twice barred them from suing anonymously.

The Kappa Kappa Gamma motion to dismiss, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne, is the sorority's first substantive response to the lawsuit, other than a March statement by its executive director, Kari Kittrell Poole, that the complaint contains “numerous false allegations.”

“The central issue in this case is simple: do the plaintiffs have a legal right to be in a sorority that excludes transgender women? They do not,” the motion to dismiss reads.


The policy of Kappa Kappa Gamma since 2015 has been to allow the sorority's more than 145 chapters to accept transgender women. The policy mirrors those of the 25 other sororities in the National Panhellenic Conference, the umbrella organization for sororities in the U.S. and Canada, according to the Kappa Kappa Gamma filing.

The sorority sisters opposed to Langford's induction could presumably change the policy if most sorority members shared their view, or they could resign if “a position of inclusion is too offensive to their personal values,” the sorority's motion to dismiss says.

“What they cannot do is have this court define their membership for them,” the motion asserts, adding that “private organizations have a right to interpret their own governing documents.”

Even if they didn't, the motion to dismiss says, the lawsuit fails to show how the sorority violated or unreasonably interpreted Kappa Kappa Gamma bylaws.

The sorority sisters' lawsuit asks U.S. District Court Judge Alan Johnson to declare Langford’s sorority membership void and to award unspecified damages.

The lawsuit claims Langford's presence in the Kappa Kappa Gamma house made some sorority members uncomfortable. Langford would sit on a couch for hours while “staring at them without talking,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit also names the national Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority council president, Mary Pat Rooney, and Langford as defendants. The court lacks jurisdiction over Rooney, who lives in Illinois and hasn't been involved in Langford's admission, according to the sorority's motion to dismiss.

The lawsuit fails to state any claim of wrongdoing by Langford and seeks no relief from her, an attorney for Langford wrote in a separate filing Tuesday in support of the sorority's motion to dismiss the case.

Instead, the women suing “fling dehumanizing mud” throughout the lawsuit “to bully Ms. Langford on the national stage,” Langford's filing says.

“This, alone, merits dismissal,” the Langford document adds.

One of the seven Kappa Kappa Gamma members at the University of Wyoming who sued dropped out of the case when Johnson ruled they couldn't proceed anonymously. The six remaining plaintiffs are Jaylyn Westenbroek, Hannah Holtmeier, Allison Coghan, Grace Choate, Madeline Ramar and Megan Kosar.

TRANSPHOBIC BANNER
Premier David Eby calls banners over B.C. highway 'hateful' and 'reprehensible'
Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday 6:04 p.m.

David Eby

RICHMOND, B.C. — British Columbia Premier David Eby says "hateful" banners aimed at transgender people that have hung for months over one of the province's highways are "reprehensible" and he wishes the protesters involved would "go home."

The premier's comments come more than a month after a B.C. Supreme Court judge granted the government an injunction banning signs or gatherings in the area around the Mountain Highway Overpass over Highway 1 in North Vancouver.

The signs have included messages saying "gender ideology = child sex grooming" and "no child is ever born in the wrong body."

Eby said he had concerns about safety as well as the nature of the protest.

"The content of the protest, obviously, it's quite hateful. It's really, in my opinion, seeking to divide British Columbia and to foment division and hatred in our province," Eby said at an unrelated news conference on Thursday.

"I find it reprehensible and while I recognize the free speech rights of people to be out and to demonstrate, the content of the demonstration I find quite awful and I wish those people would certainly go home."

RCMP said Wednesday they were seeking clarity from the Ministry of Transportation related to whether enforcing the injunction, granted on safety grounds, would mean infringing on protesters' rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Related video: Controversial North Vancouver highway protests continue despite injunction (Global News)   Duration 1:59   View on Watch

“If we enforce the injunction, we have to make sure that doing so will not infringe on the Charter rights of any individual,” Insp. Jayson Lucash, officer in charge of the North Vancouver RCMP, said in a statement.

“It is a complex assessment, but it’s ultimately aimed at upholding the integrity of judicial process, and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.”

The Mounties said the sentiments behind the protests "do not align with the RCMP’s core values, and are contrary to the RCMP’s commitment to inclusivity in supporting our diverse community."

In a statement issued Thursday, the Ministry of Transportation said the court order gave police the ability to arrest and remove anyone they think is contravening or has contravened the injunction.

The ministry said hanging banners from highway overpasses is not allowed under the Transportation Act.

"We continue to ask police to act on the injunction to provide for the safety of the travelling public," the statement said.

Eby said the government went to court seeking the injunction because the location of the protest raised safety concerns for drivers along the highway and that a sign has fallen on at least one occasion.

"If nothing else, we need to ensure that the public is safe and that the demonstration doesn't compromise public safety," he said.

Banners at the same location have declared COVID-19 a "fraud" and carried abusive messages about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 22, 2023

The Canadian Press

As LBGTQ community girds for battle, advocates say time and the law are on their side

Story by The Canadian Press


WASHINGTON — Harleigh Walker is just an ordinary American high school kid, but with one important difference: how she's spending her summer vacation.

The self-described "very happy" straight-A student, debate-team veteran and unabashed Taylor Swift fan enjoys listening to records in her bedroom and going to concerts with friends in her Alabama town of Auburn.

Oh, and she loves to travel. Which is good, because she's fast becoming one of the most prominent and eloquent advocates for transgender rights in the United States.

That's what she was doing again Wednesday, the first day of summer, in front of one of the most powerful Senate committees on Capitol Hill — just one of many U.S. forums where the country's social divisions are on regular display.

"I'm just trying to be in a teenager in America, same as any other teen," Walker said, her grey plaid pantsuit and poise under pressure making her seem older and wiser than her 16 years.

"But I keep having to jump through hoops that other people don't have to. I keep having to spend Spring Break lobbying for my right to exist while my friends are on vacation."

This, in a nutshell, is the United States in 2023: riven by seemingly insurmountable cultural and social divisions that serve as rocket fuel for social media's echo-chamber dynamics and provide fertile ground for political gain.

And with the 2024 presidential election cycle in full swing, the question of LGBTQ rights promises to be a popular talking point with Republicans, particularly in the dozens of U.S. states considering legislation that targets them.

"We're kind of living in two different Americas right now," said Andrew Flores, an assistant professor at American University's School of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., who specializes in LBGTQ politics and policy.

"Some trans people have a whole lot more protections because of where they live, and some trans people have a whole lot fewer protections just because of where they live."

At least 20 states have already enacted laws that limit or entirely outlaw gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors — just one component of a wide array of restrictions being imposed by Republican-led state legislatures.

Others include limits on self-expression like drag shows and literature, access to facilities like public washrooms, marriage bans, rollbacks of protections against discrimination and the ability to obtain gender-friendly IDs.

But it's been schools and their students that have become the hottest flashpoint, in large part because of their political heft and the ability of opponents to frame the issue as one of student safety, parental rights and fairness.

Also at Wednesday's hearing was Riley Gaines, a former all-American competitive swimmer from Tennessee who has become an outspoken critic of allowing transgender women to compete against biological females.

"It's not transphobic to say that you can't change your sex — sex is down to a chromosomal level, and that's not something that can be changed," Gaines said.

She described, often fighting tears, the climate in the locker room at last year's NCAA Championships when she and others found themselves changing in the company of transgender competitor Lia Thomas.

Some of their rivals were so unnerved they opted to change clothes in a janitor's closet instead, she testified.

"Sports is the one area where your sexual chromosomes matter," Gaines said. "The overwhelming majority of people regarding this issue of fairness and women's sports agree that having men in women's sports is wrong, and that it's unfair."

That's what makes it such a powerful political tool, said Flores, who also serves as a visiting scholar with the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA focused on the intersection between jurisprudence and gender identity issues.

"At least for now, people are viewing the sports question from a fundamentally moral perspective — it's, 'I'm right or you're wrong,'" he said.

Finding a middle ground on which to build policy is difficult when an issue is so complex and misunderstood, he added.

"Eventually, there's going to be a greater appreciation of what that complexity is, but it will take time, in part just because the American public is finally learning more about what the term transgender actually means."

Despite the political and cultural climate, LGBTQ activists nonetheless feel they are on the cusp of a breakthrough akin to the advent of gay rights in the 1970s and 1980s, culminating in the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015.

"I think we are in a moment in history right now where there is absolute division and there is absolute regress — but I actually think that it's not nearly as bad as the media wants to make it," said Todd Sears, a New York financial adviser.

In 2010, Sears founded Out Leadership, a growing alliance of corporate leaders actively promoting LGBTQ inclusion and advancement in some of America's most prominent boardrooms and C-suites.

"I have so many titans of business that have supported me and continue to support this movement that it's almost like the death knell — (criticism is) the loudest right before it's over. I think this is the dying gasp.

"It's bad, and I don't want to underplay that. But it just shows how much progress we've made, how much farther we've come, just by the vitriol and the hatred and the intensity of the fear."

Out Leadership released an index last month cataloguing how LGBTQ-friendly all 50 states are, with an eye toward promoting the time-honoured principle that diversity and equality are simply good business.

New York, Connecticut and New Jersey topped their list, while Louisiana, South Carolina and Arkansas rounded out the bottom.

The prevalence of anti-LGBTQ bills across the U.S. prompted congressional Democrats to reintroduce the Equality Act, a proposed federal law designed to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination.

"This is an insult to our ideals. It is a continuing stain upon our pride as a country," New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker told a news conference Wednesday.

"This is not a cause just for the LGBTQ. It is the call of all Americans who believe in our ideals."

For Flores, the case law to date surrounding LGBTQ issues is simply too robust to imagine higher courts overturning it, even with the conservative tilt of the current U.S. Supreme Court.

"The law as it relates to sex and gender is actually far more developed than even the law around sexual orientation, and what your rights are under that category," he said.

He cited the examples of two well-known U.S. cases that ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution: a state effort to establish a higher legal drinking age for men and a military institute in Virginia that wanted to exclude women.

Both cases were predicated on similar outdated stereotypes about women, he said: that they were less likely to drive while intoxicated, and unlikely to withstand the rigours of a military curriculum aimed at male soldiers.

"If there are stereotypes involved, that's clearly going to be something that could be questionable," Flores said.

"There's more legal grounding to say, 'What are your motivations to make certain broad-based claims, and are those motivations based upon a stereotype about what you think about men and women?'"

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 23, 2023.

James McCarten, The Canadian Press

A National State of Emergency: Human Rights Campaign Sounds the Alarm over Anti-LGBTQ+ Laws in U.S.

Uptick in anti-LGBTQ+ bills has left workers concerned for their safety and benefits: 'I worry that we're moving backwards'

Story by Rebecca Picciotto • CNBC - Yesterday 


Woman's hand working in office with LGBT decor and accessories.

 Cultura LGBTQIA© Provided by CNBC

So far this year, 491 anti-LGBTQ+ policies have been proposed to the U.S. legislature, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. That's well over double the total of last year.

This legislative trend has led to growing concerns for LGBTQ+ employees about their professional security, access to benefits and safety at work. For example, workers say they are worried that they may lose gender-affirming health care for themselves or their children.

"A year ago, if you were to tell me, 'How do you feel in the workplace as an LGBT person?' I would say, 'Yeah, there's challenges but I'm confident and excited to see us progress,'" says Radissen Ramoutar, an advertising manager at Indeed. "This year, if you asked me that question, I would say … 'I don't know if we're moving forward anymore. I worry that we're moving backwards.'"

A Glassdoor report that polled over 6,000 employees in May found that 55% of LGBTQ+ workers say they have either experienced or witnessed their coworkers making anti-LGBTQ+ comments, a 53% increase from 2019. An Indeed survey of over 700 LGBTQ+ workers discovered that 65% are worried about the impact that anti-LGBTQ+ legislation will have on their employment opportunities.

Abby, an office manager at Indeed who is based in Texas, says, "I do not feel as comfortable showing up in the workplace being a very visibly queer person that uses they/them pronouns without knowing exactly who I'm speaking to anymore. Especially living in a state affected by this legislation."

Abby asked that their last name be omitted due to safety concerns related to sharing their identity with a public audience.

Now, employees are getting more selective about where and at which companies they work. According to the Indeed report, more than three-quarters of LGBTQ+ workers would hesitate to apply to a job based in a state with anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. In today's tight labor market, that's an especially significant result.

"It matters in hiring … you are literally doing away with 15 million people the moment you don't support the LGBTQ+ community," says LaFawn Davis, senior vice president of environmental, social and governance policies at Indeed. "Companies that are more inclusive make more revenue."

How to tell where a company stands, beyond rainbow logos

It might seem a safe bet to assume that any company that rolls out a rainbow rebrand on June 1 would have an LGBTQ+-friendly work environment. That is not always the case, according to Davis.

"Employees know that once a year there's a rainbow that goes on their company logo, but there's not much action within the community," she says.

Distinguishins authentic corporate activism from performative allyship requires really getting to know a company. Here are some questions you can use to better understand a company's LGBTQ+ culture, according to Indeed:

Does the company have LGBTQ+ employee resource groups? Employee resource groups, or ERGs, aim to create voluntary, worker-led spaces for those of similar identities to share their collective experiences at work. Indeed's survey found that 80% of LGBTQ+ workers reported better well-being at work when they were able to participate in an ERG. However, it has not yet become a standard feature of every company — just about a third of LGBTQ+ workers say that their company has an ERG.

Does the company have openly out LGBTQ+ leaders? A February survey found that 75% of LGBTQ+ startup founders hide their identity to avoid discrimination from investors. Nearly 70% of Indeed's surveyed workers say they are not aware of any out executives or leaders at their companies. If LGBTQ+ executives do not feel comfortable sharing their identity at a given organization, an employee might wonder whether that culture would translate to their level too.

Does the company have inclusive office policies? Davis says that at some companies, there are still "antiquated dress codes" that do not allow employees to feel comfortable with their identities at the office. Other companies may not have systems in place to update company records with pronouns or new names. Some office buildings may not have gender-inclusive bathrooms. These features, while seemingly simple, can make a difference in a company's ability to cultivate a "culture of psychological safety," as Davis puts it.

Does the company openly and consistently support LGBTQ+ community milestones? A company's public behavior around LGBTQ+ issues can be a helpful indicator of their internal culture. For example, companies like Disney have been openly supportive of LGBTQ+ communities and policies, going beyond Pride Month niceties.

DON'T MISS: Want to be smarter and more successful with your money, work & life? Sign up for our new newsletter!

Check out:

For some LGBTQ employees, remote work is a 'game changer' for inclusion

The 10 highest-rated companies for LGBTQ+ workers, according to Glassdoor

How to tell if a company is LGBTQ+ friendly during a job search, according to an expert