COMMENTARY | On Tuesday the Securities and Exchange Commission rejected a bid by ExxonMobil to block a vote at their next shareholder meeting.
The ruling halted an attempt by ExxonMobil to prevent a forced non-discrimination shareholder resolution vote; pushed by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, The Pride Foundation, Human Rights Campaign Foundation and a few other groups.
The resolution filed by the New York State comptroller requested that ExxonMobil amend its equal employment opportunity policy to “include explicit protections for sexual orientation and gender identity and to substantially implement it.” And that this vote must take place during its annual shareholders meeting on May 30.
ExxonMobil has been resisting this request, stating in a January letter to the SEC that its current employment policies and practices already conformed to DiNapoli’s resolution request.
Specifically referencing the employment, policies and practices page on the website that states “Any form of discrimination by or toward employees, contractors, suppliers, and customers in any
ExxonMobil workplace is strictly prohibited. Our global, zero-tolerance policy applies to all forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
But apparently that stated policy is not enough to satisfy the SEC.
In a written response dated March 20, Ted Yu, Senior Special SEC Counsel refuted ExxonMobil, saying “it appears that ExxonMobil’s policies, practices and procedures do not compare favorably with the
guidelines of the proposal and that ExxonMobil has not, therefore, substantially, implemented the proposal.”
Uh, since when did this become a function of the SEC, to force a vote in a share holder meeting in reference to a company’s employment polices? The website clearly states:
“The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.”
Clearly nothing about equal employment policies, why? That’s not their function.
But under the directive of the Obama administration, along with progressive state officials who seek to redefine the business culture. Government agencies at the local, state and especially the federal level are emboldened to force corporations into implementing polices that are specific to needs of the LGBT agenda.
If you own stock of ExxonMobil, I would let my voice be heard on this matter.
As of 2012, 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their EEO policy and 50 percent include gender identity.
What have we become as a Nation when a man who dresses or identifies as woman or vice versa is now considered a protected class.
There is no doubt many of these changes came about by pressure from activist, politicians, and government agencies. Along with a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Is this what the left means by tolerance, freedom and respect for differing opinions?
What does this trend say to current and future business owners; who choose not to have an male employee who represents there business come to work dressed in stockings and high heels. Who chooses not to hire or to keep as an employee a person who does not fit that company’s culture, mission statement or vision?
It says by law you better allow it, or we will come after you. It’s says we will sue you, bankrupt you, vilify you and put a tremendous amount of public pressure on you from the all-powerful hand of the State until you comply.
What a great environment to start a business in.
Call me crazy but it doesn’t sound like freedom to me; sounds a lot like state-sponsored fascism and totalitarianism.