Connect with us

National

Chicago firm to defend Exxon Mobil against charges of anti-gay bias

Seyfarth Shaw has pro-LGBT reputation and perfect HRC score

Published

on

Exxon, Mobil, gay news, Washington Blade

Seyfarth Shaw is representing Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit alleging anti-gay bias against the company. (Photo of Exxon sign by Ildar Sagdejev, photo of Mobil sign by Terence Ong; courtesy Wikimedia Commons).

A Chicago-based law firm known as Seyfarth Shaw is representing oil-and-gas giant Exxon Mobil against charges of alleged anti-gay bias in hiring practices, according to the LGBT group Freedom to Work.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, told the Washington Blade on Thursday night the Chicago office of Seyfarth Shaw elected this month to represent Exxon Mobil in the lawsuit, which was filed by his organization and is pending before the Illinois Department of Human Rights.

“I believe that even the most disgusting criminals should have access to counsel when they violate the law, and Exxon’s shareholders will now pay big bucks for Seyfarth’s lawyers, who are probably some of the most expensive corporate defense lawyers in the country,” Almeida said. “But I don’t think there’s any need for Seyfarth to run up their billable hours since Freedom to Work would like to settle the case today.”

Seyfarth Shaw is a massive international law firm and employs more than 800 attorneys throughout the world. It bills itself on its website as “a national platform and an international gateway” that helps businesses in litigation, employment, corporate, real estate and employee benefits.

Freedom to Work filed the lawsuit against Exxon Mobil in May after conducting a test in which it sent two fictitious resumes for a job opening at the company in Illinois. One was from a more qualified applicant who outed herself as LGBT on her resume; the other was a less qualified applicant who gave no indications about her sexual orientation or gender identity. The less qualified non-LGBT applicant received multiple callbacks, the more qualified LGBT applicant received nothing.

The organization filed a complaint against the company on the basis that it had violated Illinois state law, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Legal precedent within Illinois and the U.S. Supreme Court allows for paired-resume testing as a basis to file an employment discrimination lawsuit against a company.

Almeida said that Exxon Mobil could settle the case by adopting a policy prohibiting discrimination against LGBT workers.

“In fact, one settlement option would be for Exxon to copy and paste Seyfarth’s own LGBT workplace policies, which have previously earned the lawfirm a 100 percent LGBT rating from the HRC,” Almeida said. “Exxon could also copy and paste the Chevron LGBT workplace policy, and we would accept that as part of the settlement.”

The Chicago office of Seyfarth Shaw didn’t respond to multiple requests this week to confirm that it has decided to represent Exxon Mobil or explain why it has decided to represent the company.

William Holbrook, an Exxon Mobil spokesperson, had no comment on whether his company selected Seyfarth Shaw to defend it against the Freedom to Work lawsuit.

Mike Coffey, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Human Resources, wouldn’t confirm that Seyfarth Shaw is participating in the lawsuit, but affirmed the case is under investigation.

Seyfarth Shaw is known for adopting pro-LGBT policies. It has a 100 percent rating on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. In addition to having an LGBT non-discrimination policy, the law firm offers same-sex partner benefits, transgender health coverage and was among the companies that signed a legal brief before the U.S. Supreme Court against the Defense of Marriage Act.

In a statement from 2011, Seyfarth Shaw Chair J. Stephen Poor touted receiving a perfect score on the HRC report for the fourth consecutive year.

“We are proud to earn this recognition and to have maintained the perfect score for the fourth year in a row, demonstrating that we don’t just ‘talk the talk,'” Poor said at the time. “We know that diversity is important to clients, and it’s equally important to us.”

Michael Cole-Schwartz, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, said his organization would dock a hypothetical law firm for representing Exxon Mobil in a case alleging anti-gay bias at the company.

“Yes, we would and have done so in the past,” Cole-Schwartz said. “The firm Foley & Lardner was docked 15 points previously for their work representing organizations trying to stop marriage equality (engagements which have since ended and they are no longer docked), although it should be noted the firm has also had a long history of pro bono support for LGBT causes.”

Starting with the 2012 report, Cole-Schwartz said HRC raised the possible point deduction from -15 to -25. One of the criteria on which companies are judged in the report is “responsible citizenship” or having “no known activity that would undermine LGBT equality.”

Informed by the Washington Blade that Seyfarth Shaw was the law firm defending Exxon Mobil, Cole-Schwartz said the situation is currently under evaluation. HRC has previously praised Freedom to Work’s lawsuit against the company.

“We’re still in the process of collecting data from companies for this year’s CEI ratings and taking a look at the lawsuit and how it might play a role in a score,” Cole-Schwartz said. “We will make a determination once we have all the information.”

Almeida is set to speak on a panel with Jeffrey Wortman, an attorney from the Los Angeles office of Seyfarth Shaw on Friday at the annual Lavender Law Conference, which this year is taking place in San Francisco. The panel is titled, “We Have An Anti-Discrimination Law! Now What?” and will address ways to enforce state non-discrimination laws through the country.

“I’m looking forward to presenting the Exxon case at this weekend’s Lavendar Law panel, and it will be interesting to see if Seyfarth’s representative on the panel will publicly defend Exxon’s anti-gay policies,” Almeida said.

Also of note, one of the attorneys at Seyfarth Shaw, Camille Olson, testified in 2009 before the House and Senate on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. She argued neither for or against the legislation, but said it should be changed for greater clarity, such as in the area of disparate impact on the issue of whether Title VII and ENDA will provide duplicate causes of action. Many changes along the lines of her recommendations were adopted in subsequent versions of the legislation.

Almeida, who’s also among the chief advocates for passage of ENDA, said he remains hopeful Exxon Mobil and Seyfarth Shaw come to embrace LGBT employment non-discrimination polices and advocacy.

“One day when historians write the accounts of ENDA and Exxon, it will be interesting to see whether the lawyers at Seyfarth are considered among the good guys or the bad guys,” Almeida said. “I think that the jury is still out. I hope both Seyfarth and Exxon do the right thing and take the side of basic workplace protections for LGBT Americans.”

UPDATE: This article has been update to include an additional comment from HRC’s Michael Cole-Schwartz.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced

One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.

NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.

John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.

The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.

Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.

 “These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.

It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”

 The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question. 

A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit. 

While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.

 Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.   

“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.

 “Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says. 

Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”

 Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”

Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.

 “As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from  the Washington Blade. 

“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said. 

The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”

It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”

The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society. 

The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.

While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.

The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.

Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.

Continue Reading

Popular