National
Exxon Mobil to offer spousal benefits to gay employees
Accused of anti-gay bias, oil giant institutes change to comply with fed’l policy

Exxon Mobil has adopted spousal benefits for its gay employees (Photo of Exxon sign by Ildar Sagdejev, photo of Mobil sign by Terence Ong; courtesy Wikimedia Commons).
Faced with criticism over anti-LGBT policies and a lawsuit alleging anti-gay bias in its hiring practices, oil-and-gas giant Exxon Mobil has elected to offer employees in same-sex marriages health and pension benefits.
Alan Jeffers, an Exxon Mobil spokesperson, said in a statement Friday the company had decided to institute the benefits in the wake of the Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act to achieve consistency with the federal government.
“ExxonMobil will recognize all legal marriages for the purposes of eligibility in U.S. benefit plans to ensure consistency for employees across the country,” Jeffers said. “The decision is consistent with the direction of most U.S. government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, Treasury and the IRS. Legal marriages are determined by the laws of the state or country where the marriage took place.”
Jeffers said this approach to spousal benefits is consistent in all countries where Exxon Mobil operates, which looks to national laws to determine eligibility for spousal benefits. According to Exxon Mobil, the company provides benefits to same-sex spouses in 30 countries outside the United States.
Speaking with the Blade, Jeffers declined to say who executed the change within Exxon Mobil, but maintained it was enacted for the sake of consistency and will be effective Tuesday. Jeffers said the company won’t recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships, only legal marriages.
Exxon Mobil enacts these benefits amid criticism for having anti-LGBT policies. For example, the company has no non-discrimination protections for workers based on sexual orientation and gender identity in its Equal Employment Opportunity guidance. Exxon Mobil has the notorious distinction of being rated “-25” in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, the lowest of any company.
Deena Fidas, director of HRC’s Workplace Equality Program, called the move from Exxon Mobil “a step toward equality,” but expressed continued disappointment with the company for its overall practices in comparison to its competitors like Chevron or BP.
“There is no federal law protecting employees from discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity and ExxonMobil refuses to join the majority of their Fortune 500 colleagues in adopting their own such policies,” Fidas said. “One has to wonder, what good are benefits for your same-sex spouse if you risk being fired for disclosing your sexual orientation in order to access them?”
The new policy from Exxon Mobil follows a similar decision from retail giant Walmart, which announced earlier this month it would begin offering domestic partner benefits to employees. But unlike Exxon Mobil, Walmart isn’t recognizing the same-sex marriages of workers for the purposes, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal.
For the 16th time this year, Exxon Mobil shareholders rejected a resolution that would have expanded the company’s equal employment opportunity policy to include non-discrimination protections for LGBT workers. This year, the resolution was sponsored by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, whose state owns a significant share of the company.
In a statement, DiNapoli commended Exxon Mobil for its new policy.
“Corporate discrimination in any form is simply not good business,” DiNapoli said. “On behalf of those who have supported the New York State Common Retirement Fund’s shareholder resolutions on this issue over these past four years, I am gratified that ExxonMobil, one of the largest corporations in the world and one of the Fund’s largest holdings, will treat its employees with the dignity, equality and respect that they deserve.”
Exxon Mobil enacts the new policy as it faces a lawsuit in Illinois filed by the LGBT group Freedom to Work over alleged anti-gay bias in hiring practices. The case is pending before the Illinois Department of Human Rights.
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, called the company’s new policy “a victory,” but said it should be followed with the company settling the lawsuit by enacting a non-discrimination policy for its LGBT workers.
“It’s time for Exxon to stop wasting its shareholders’ money by running up legal bills on discrimination proceedings that can be settled right away if the corporation would simply add LGBT protections to Exxon’s official equal employment opportunity document,” Almeida said. “We’d like to begin settlement talks next week in our Illinois lawsuit stemming from evidence that Exxon gave hiring preference to a less qualified straight applicant over a more qualified lesbian applicant.”
But Exxon Mobil shows no signs of buckling on the issue of non-discrimination. Jeffers said the equal employment opportunity is based on the current federal law — which affords no explicit protections for LGBT workers — and said Freedom to Work’s lawsuit is without merit because it’s based on fictitious resumes sent to the company and not any real discrimination.
“We have responded to the claims,” Jeffers said. “We consider them baseless, without merit. We feel that the organization filed the complaint to really use our name to advance its political agenda. This is not a case of discrimination. We do not accept the claim and provided a response to the Department of Human Rights in Illinois.”
Additionally, Jeffers said the company has a “zero-tolerance” policy for discrimination. Although the equal employment non-discrimination policy doesn’t include protections for LGBT workers, Jeffers said the company has “very explicit” training against any form of discrimination, including sexual orientation, and has employee affinity groups, including one for LGBT employees.
Almeida acknowledged he had read the response filed by Exxon Mobil in the case and said it was written by Seyfarth Shaw, a Chicago-based firm that he earlier said was representing Exxon Mobil in the case. However, Almeida declined to provide a copy of the response. Exxon Mobil didn’t immediately respond to a follow-up request to provide the response.
Still, Almeida noted Exxon Mobil made the change to spousal benefits one week after the Labor Department made public its post-DOMA guidance for employer-provided pension and health care for employees, saying it’s evidence the company will act in a pro-LGBT way if required by federal law.
“The timing shows that Exxon is the kind of company that only does the right thing when they are forced by law, and therefore we will push forward on Freedom to Work’s lawsuit until Exxon agrees to amend its policies to make clear that LGBT Americans have the same workplace protections as everyone else,” Almeida said.
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.
Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members.
She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing.
Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.
This post will be updated as more details are announced.
Federal Government
Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels
New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22
The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ characters.
On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”
This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”
The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”
It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”
LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.
“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”
Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.
“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.
“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.
“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”
Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.
“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”
PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.
“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”
This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.
