WORKPLACE For Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Americans 2001 The State of The of State The HRC SENIOR STAFF As America’s largest gay and lesbian organization, the Human Rights Campaign provides a Elizabeth Birch national voice on gay and lesbian issues. HRC effecively lobbies Congress; mobilizes grass- Executive Director roots action in diverse communities; invests strategically to elect a fair-minded Congress; and Harvey Hurdle Chief Operations Officer increases public understanding through innovative education and communication strategies. Veronica Hairston HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation Director of Human Resources and Diversity Seth Kilbourn and gender expression and identity, to ensure that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender National Field Director Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community. Kim I. Mills Education Director Cathy Nelson Development Director HRC WORKNET Jeff Sachse President, Capital Campaign The Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s workplace project, HRC WorkNet, is a national David M. Smith source of information on laws and policies surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity Communications Director & Senior Strategist Winnie Stachelberg in the workplace. HRC WorkNet advises employees and employers on the value of workplace Political Director diversity. It collects, analyzes and disseminates information to assist employees and employers in Anthony E. Varona General Counsel and Legal Director implementing policies and procedures aimed at treating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Russel Vert workers equally. For more information, visit the HRC WorkNet website at http://www.hrc.org/ Finance Director worknet, or contact HRC WorkNet at (202) 216-1552 or via e-mail at [email protected].

HRC FOUNDATION BOARD

Vic Basile Terry Bean Edith D. Cofrin Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 919 18th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 Lawrie Demorest phone 202/628-4160 TTY 202/216-1572 fax 202/347-5323 website www.hrc.org Michael Duffy Candy Marcum Tina Podlodowski © 2001 by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. The HRC Foundation grants permis- Hilary Rosen sion for the reproduction and redistribution of this publication only when reproduced in its Worth Ross Craig Sannum entirety and distributed free of charge. The Human Rights Campaign name and the Equality Andrea Sharrin logo are trademarks of the Human Rights Campaign. THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE WORKPLACEFOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001 WORKPLACETABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 5

INTRODUCTION ...... 7

CHAPTER 1: Government Actions Covering Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Domestic Partner Benefits ...... 9

Actions at the Federal Level ...... 9 Actions at the State and Local Levels ...... 10 Challenges at the Ballot Box...... 13 Challenges in the Courts ...... 13 Challenges and Unfinished Business before Legislative Bodies ...... 14 Equal Benefits Ordinances ...... 15 Domestic Partner Registries ...... 15

CHAPTER 2: Advances in the Private Sector...... 17

Non-Discrimination Policies That Include Sexual Orientation...... 17 Domestic Partner Benefits ...... 18

CHAPTER 3: Transgender Issues in the Workplace ...... 23

Laws Prohibiting Gender Identity Discrimination ...... 23 Corporations Address Gender Identity ...... 24

CHAPTER 4: Major Gains and Losses in 2000-2001 ...... 27

Shareholder Activism ...... 27 Notable Court Cases ...... 28

CONCLUSIONS ...... 31

APPENDIX 1: Fortune 500 Policies ...... 32

APPENDIX 2: Businesses That Support Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ...... 37

ENDNOTES ...... 38

3 A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY This report covers the period from August 2000 (where the do not categorize employers by market sector. Thus, there are 2000 “The State of the Workplace” left off) through several tables in this report analyzing trends in market sectors August 2001. that rely solely on HRC-compiled data. As a result, they do not provide a complete analysis of all 4,200-plus employers The data in this report come from a variety of sources, with domestic partner benefits; they do, however, point to including: direct reporting to HRC WorkNet (www.hrc.org/ certain trends within market sectors. worknet), the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s work- place project; news accounts; state and local governments; HRC WorkNet has meticulously compiled and maintained employee resource groups; individuals; and other gay, les- its database over the last seven years. Because the HRC bian, bisexual and transgender advocacy organizations. This WorkNet database is constantly updated and verified, it has report also incorporates information from the glvIndex, a become the most authoritative source of information on rating system developed by Grant Lukenbill and Howard U.S. workplace policies and laws affecting GLBT Americans. Tharsing and recently acquired by the Human Rights However, it is possible (and indeed likely) that employers not Campaign Foundation. HRC WorkNet makes every effort to listed in this report or on HRC’s website have policies regard- check the accuracy of the information it receives. ing GLBT employees. HRC WorkNet encourages readers of “The State of the Workplace” and visitors to its website to With regard to domestic partner benefits, data on more than contact the Human Rights Campaign with any omissions or 3,000 employers were provided by the cities of San errors in any lists. Francisco, Seattle and Los Angeles. Unlike HRC, these cities 4 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001 WORKPLACEEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Employers across the country are continuing at a rapid pace to implement policies and programs aimed at treating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender workers more equally. Two important bellwethers tracked closely by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s WorkNet project — non-discrimination policies and domestic partner benefits — increased markedly during the period covered in this report (August 2000-August 2001).

EMPLOYERS AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION have added the benefits so far in 2001 — independent of city NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES contracting laws requiring them to do so — than in any year since the HRC Foundation has tracked the trend. As of Aug. 15, 2001, HRC WorkNet had identified 2,001 companies, colleges and universities, state and local govern- The trend toward offering domestic partner benefits is clear- ments and federal agencies that had written non-discrimi- est in the Fortune 500 companies, where America’s largest nation policies covering sexual orientation. This represents companies are increasingly making domestic partner benefits an increase of 293 employers, or 17 percent, in one year. a standard practice. The number of Fortune 500 companies offering DP benefits has more than doubled in the past three At this writing, 294, or 59 percent, of Fortune 500 compa- years, from 61 in 1998 to 145 in 2001. In fact, more nies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination Fortune 500 companies — 36 — added domestic partner policies. This represents an increase of 39 companies, or 15 benefits in 2001 than in any year since the HRC Foundation percent, over the prior year. (See Appendix 1.) has tracked the trend. (See Appendix 1.)

The closer a company is to the top of the Fortune 500 list, The closer a company is to the top of the Fortune 500 list, the more likely it is to have such a policy. A total of 79 per- the more likely it is to provide domestic partner health ben- cent of the Fortune 100 and 88 percent of the Fortune 50 efits. While 29 percent of Fortune 500 companies provide prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. DP benefits, 54 percent of Fortune 50 companies offer them. EMPLOYERS AND DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS SEXUAL ORIENTATION NON-DISCRIMINATION LAWS The number of employers that provide domestic partner health insurance benefits has increased by a full 50 percent Because there is no federal law explicitly prohibiting discrim- from 2,856 employers in August 1999 — the first year in ination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, les- this series of reports — to 4,285 in August 2001. These bian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers are covered by a employers include private companies, colleges and universi- patchwork of state and local laws — if they are covered at all. ties and state and local governments. Eleven states, the District of Columbia and 122 cities and That number is up from 3,572 employers in August 2000. This counties ban anti-gay discrimination in private workplaces, was an increase of 713 employers, or 20 percent, in the 12 as well as in public-sector jobs. The states are: California, months covered by this report. Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and It appears that the economic slowdown resulting from the Wisconsin. Only two — Minnesota and Rhode Island — bursting of the high-tech bubble has not had an impact on extend protections to individuals based on gender identity. the rate of DP benefits implementation — but it may be too An additional 10 states and 106 city and county govern- early to tell. Even in the absence of local contracting laws ments and agencies — for a total of 250 state and local requiring companies to provide benefits, the pace of employ- governments — protect their own public employees from ers adding the benefits has accelerated. The Human Rights discrimination based on sexual orientation. Campaign Foundation has identified more employers that

5 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

In the period covered by this report, one state — Maryland — degrees, from one sex to the other while continuing to work. In passed a law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in addition, several gender identity organizations have been employment, housing and public accommodations. (That law actively working for several years to change non-discrimination will not go into effect as slated this year because a conservative policies and health insurance benefits to protect and assist gen- coalition has filed petitions seeking a referendum on the law der-variant employees. Plus, HRC WorkNet has sought to raise in November 2002. The petition signatures are currently awareness of the issue with human resources groups and in the being challenged in court.) media, resulting in articles in the past year in both trade and mainstream publications, including The Washington Post and The number of localities that are providing workplace protec- the Wall Street Journal. tions has been steadily rising since the 1970s. HRC WorkNet has provided advice and assistance to numer- Government bodies in at least eight other jurisdictions enacted ous employers grappling with these questions. The project has laws banning anti-gay discrimination in public and private created web-based resources (see www.hrc.org/worknet) that employment during the period covered in this report. They address in detail issues related to gender transitioning on the are: Atlanta; DeKalb County, Ga.; Des Moines, Iowa; Fort job. A complete list of employers prohibiting gender identity Worth, Texas; Nassau County, N.Y.; Peekskill, N.Y.; Rochester, discrimination is also available through the website. N.Y.; and Summit County, Ohio. These gains include the first municipalities in Georgia and the second city in Texas (after GENDER IDENTITY AND THE LAW Austin) to enact such protections. Two states — Minnesota and Rhode Island — the District of Three states enacted laws protecting public employees from job Columbia and 32 local governments have enacted laws that discrimination based on sexual orientation: Indiana, Montana provide protections for transgender employees in either the and Delaware. public or private sector.

At least seven municipalities enacted laws protecting their pub- During the 12 months covered by this report, Rhode Island and lic employees from this type of discrimination: Fairfax County, at least five municipalities enacted laws to protect gender-variant Va.; Greenburgh, N.Y.; Houston; Lake Worth, Fla.; Monroe people. De Kalb, Ill., Madison, Wis., and Portland, Ore., enact- County, Fla.; Orlando, Fla.; and San Luis Obispo County, Calif. ed new laws to cover employees in public and private workplaces. Houston and Multnomah County, Ore., banned discrimination DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS LAWS against transgender employees in the public work force.

Eight states and 105 city and county governments or quasi- Three other states have extended protections to transgender government agencies provide health insurance benefits to their people on the job, but not through legislative action. employees’ domestic partners, for a total of 113 state and local Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and governments. Opportunities decided in 2000 that transsexual people may bring a claim under that state’s non-discrimination law. Also, Since August 2000, two states passed measures to provide a New Jersey appeals court ruled on July 3, 2000, that trans- domestic partner health insurance benefits: Maine and Rhode sexuals and other gender-variant people are covered by the state Island. law against gender and disability discrimination. In New York, a few courts have held that transsexual people are protected During the same period, at least 10 local governments or quasi- under the state’s sex discrimination law. governmental agencies added or announced domestic partner benefits: Concord, Calif.; DeKalb County, Ga.; Eastchester, GENDER IDENTITY AND WORKPLACE POLICIES N.Y.; Mansfield, Conn.; Mission Viejo, Calif.; Milwaukee; Scottsdale, Ariz.; Summit County, Colo.; Ventura, Calif; and HRC WorkNet has identified 20 private employers that the Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. expressly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. Among these are five Fortune 500 companies: AMR (parent GENDER IDENTITY ISSUES AND EMPLOYMENT company of American Airlines), Apple Computer, Lexmark International, Lucent Technologies, and Xerox Corp. Other In the past year, HRC WorkNet observed increased interest employers that provide such protections include: Agere among employers regarding gender identity issues. Much of Systems Inc., Avaya Inc., Trillium Asset Management and the this appears to have been the result of individual employees law firm Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP. raising the issue and/or seeking to transition, in varying 6 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001 WORKPLACEINTRODUCTION

This third annual “State of the Workplace” report focuses on laws, legislation and policies covering discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity and laws, legislation and policies covering domestic partner health insurance benefits. This report cites these as basic measures of progress for gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans- gender workers in America. However, they are bellwethers, and not the only signs of progress in recent years. Increasingly, employers are looking at the whole gamut of benefits they offer — such as family and medical leave, relocation assistance, pensions, day care, bereavement leave — and considering whether to extend them to employ- ees’ domestic partners.

In addition, many employers are demonstrating their com- ing it easier for LGBT workers to select employers with a mitment to their GLBT employees, consumers and investors more welcoming environment. Employers that have a repu- by expanding these efforts beyond internal policies into mar- tation for respecting diversity and that offer the best benefits keting, advertising, financial and political support for GLBT packages will be at a competitive advantage — an important issues and organizations. consideration in a tight labor market.

They take these steps for a variety of reasons, some of which Fair policies improve productivity may be altruistic. But for the most part, HRC WorkNet has Maintaining strong policies against discrimination and observed many of these changes are happening because they harassment and providing equal benefits can alleviate per- are good for business. (This applies equally to colleges and sonal stress that may keep employees from focusing fully universities and the public sector, which are also competing on work. for top talent.) For example, domestic partner benefits have been shown to be an inexpensive method of attracting and Turnover is costly retaining good employees.1 Some studies have put the total cost of recruiting a new employee as high as $75,000.2 These costs include advertis- Other good reasons include: ing, interviewing, training, testing, relocation, lost produc- tivity and recruitment incentives. Changing makeup of the American family U.S. Census figures released this year show a dramatic GLBT Americans are consumers and investors increase in the number of households that comprise same-sex According to a 2001 survey, 72 percent of gay, lesbian, bisex- partners. Many states reported seven or eight times the num- ual and transgender consumers feel it is important for com- ber of same-sex partner households as in 1990 — which is panies that advertise to the GLBT community to “demon- still a vast undercount, in HRC’s view. Domestic partner strate effective corporate citizenship” by supporting the com- benefits are an easy method for employers to adapt to the munity’s causes.3 Another survey found that 57 percent of changing demographics of their employees. Since a key pur- gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, when deciding pose of a benefits program is to provide a safety net for where to open a financial services account, consider it impor- employees and their families, thereby enabling employees to tant for a firm to have a policy banning discrimination focus better on work, a plan that does not include domestic against gay people.4 partner benefits ignores a growing portion of the work force. And since benefits are another form of compensation, it is It’s the right thing to do unfair to restrict some of them to married workers when gay In the same way that most agree women and ethnic minori- and lesbian workers cannot get legally married. ties should be protected from unfair treatment because of who they are, LGBT workers should not have to worry that Inclusive policies improve recruitment potential they could lose their jobs because of a supervisor’s prejudice. A growing number of employers are adding sexual orienta- tion and gender identity to their policies and programs, mak- 7 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001

CHAPTER 1 WORKPLACEGovernment Actions Covering Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Domestic Partner Benefits

Although a consistent majority of Americans believe that anti-gay job discrimination is wrong, workplace discrim- ination based on sexual orientation is legal in 39 states.5 (See Figure 1.) As for employee benefits, Vermont — the only state to offer civil unions to same-sex couples — requires employers to provide the same benefits to employ- ees in civil unions as they do to employees who are legally married. However, questions remain as to whether fed- eral law allows some employers to sidestep this obligation with regard to some workplace benefits.6

ACTIONS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL federal civilian work force. Agencies and departments of the federal government have been working to implement the poli- A total of 42 percent of all adults believe that a federal law cies. To date, all 14 Cabinet-level departments and 24 inde- prohibiting job discrimination on the grounds of sexual ori- pendent agencies and offices have included the words sexual entation already exists.7 It does not.8 orientation in their non-discrimination policies. President Bush has made no public statement on the executive order, A bill called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act but has given signals that he will leave it in place.9 would make it illegal to discriminate based on real or per- ceived sexual orientation. ENDA was first introduced in Two bills would address domestic partner benefits for federal Congress on June 23, 1994, and introduced in the current employees. A measure sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank, D- Congress on July 31, 2001. Mass., would provide domestic partner benefits to all federal employees. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and The bill would prohibit employers with more than 15 workers Obligations Act of 2001 was introduced Feb. 14, 2001, and from using an individual’s sexual orientation as the basis for referred to several committees for action. A bill introduced by employment decisions such as hiring, firing, promotion or Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., on June 21, 2001, would compensation. It would not apply to religious organizations, broaden the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to including educational institutions substantially controlled or allow employees to take time off to care for a domestic part- supported by religious organizations. It does not require ner with a serious illness. It was also referred to committee. employers to provide domestic partner benefits. On Sept. 10, 1996, the bill came within one vote of passing the Senate. The legislation as currently written does not include protections FIGURE 1. Americans Oppose Discrimination Against Gays in the Workplace10 based on gender identity, although a coalition of groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, is continuing to edu- 100% cate members of Congress on the need for such protections. 80% Although Congress has yet to pass federal protections, many individual members have pledged not to discriminate in 60% their own offices. As of Aug. 15, 2001, a total of 263 repre- 40% sentatives and 67 senators had policies forbidding sexual ori-

entation discrimination in their congressional offices. 20% Eighty-seven representatives and 10 senators have established

similar policies based on gender identity, according to 0% GenderPAC, a Washington-based organization that works Jun 77 Jun 82 Jul 83 Oct 89 Jun 92 Jan 93 Feb 94 Feb 96 Apr 97 Feb 99 for gender rights.

Americans who think lesbians and Americans who think lesbians and An executive order signed in May 1998 by President Clinton gays should have equal rights in the gays should not have equal rights in prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. the workplace.

9 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

throws the referendum into doubt.13 The eight municipali- ties are:

Atlanta Nassau County, N.Y. DeKalb County, Ga. Peekskill, N.Y. Des Moines, Iowa Rochester, N.Y. Fort Worth, Texas Summit County, Ohio

FIGURE 2. States That These gains include the first jurisdictions in Georgia and the Prohibit Discrimination second city in Texas (after Austin) to enact such protections. Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity Also, three states — Indiana, Montana and Delaware — and States with laws that bar anti- gay job discrimination in pri- at least seven municipalities enacted laws since August 2000 vate and public workplaces.11 that protect their public employees from sexual orientation Note: Minnesota and Rhode Island also ban discrimination discrimination. They are: based on gender identity.

States that bar anti-gay job Fairfax County, Va. Monroe County, Fla. discrimination against public Greenburgh, N.Y. Orlando, Fla. employees only. Houston San Luis Obispo Lake Worth, Fla. County, Calif.

ACTIONS AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS Domestic Partner Benefits Eight states and 105 city and county governments or quasi- Because there is no federal law explicitly prohibiting discrim- governmental agencies provide health insurance benefits to ination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, les- their employees’ domestic partners, for a total of 113 state bian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers are covered by a and local governments. (See Table 2.) patchwork of state and local laws — if they are covered at all. Since August 2000, two states — Maine and Rhode Island Eleven states, the District of Columbia and 122 cities and — and 10 local governments or quasi-governmental agencies counties ban anti-gay discrimination in private workplaces, have added or announced their intention to provide domes- as well as in public-sector jobs.12 The states are California, tic partner benefits for their employees.14 They are: Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Concord, Calif. Scottsdale, Ariz. Wisconsin. Only two — Minnesota and Rhode Island — DeKalb County, Ga. Summit County, Colo. extend protections to individuals based on gender identity. Eastchester, N.Y. Ventura, Calif. An additional 10 states and 106 city and county govern- Mansfield, Conn. Washington (D.C.) ments and agencies — for a total of 250 state and local Mission Viejo, Calif. Metropolitan Area governments — protect their own public employees from Milwaukee Transit Authority discrimination based on sexual orientation. (See Figure 2 and Table 1.) FIGURE 3. Cities and Counties That Ban The number of localities that are providing workplace protec- Anti-Gay Discrimination in Private tions has been steadily rising since the 1970s. (See Figure 3.) and Public Workplaces

Since August 2000, one state — Maryland — and at least eight local jurisdictions enacted laws banning anti-gay dis- crimination in public and private employment. But in early July 2001, a conservative coalition gathered signatures to force a referendum on the law in November 2002, thereby suspending its enactment. A lawsuit has since been filed, 0 16 41 122 however, that challenges the validity of the petitions and 1970 1980 1990 2001 10 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE 2001

TABLE 1. Cities and Counties that Ban Workplace Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation

ARIZONA ILLINOIS MASSACHUSETTS OHIO Phoenix 1992 Champaign 1977 Amherst 1976 Cleveland 1994 Tucson 1999 Chicago 1988 Boston 1984 Columbus 1992 Cook County 1993 Brookline 1988 Summit County 2001 CALIFORNIA De Kalb 1998 Cambridge 1984 Toledo 1998 Berkeley 1978 Urbana 1979 Malden 1984 Yellow Springs 1979 Cathedral 1987 Somerville 1993 Davis 1986 INDIANA Worcester 1986 OREGON Laguna Beach 1984 Bloomington 1993 Ashland 1993 Long Beach 1989 Lafayette 1993 MICHIGAN Benton County 1998 Los Angeles 1979 West Lafayette 1993 Ann Arbor 1978 Corvallis 1994 Los Angeles County 1989 Detroit 1979 Eugene 1994 Oakland 1984 IOWA East Lansing 1986 Portland 1994 Sacramento 1986 Ames 1991 Flint 1990 San Diego 1990 Cedar Rapids 1999 Grand Ledge 2000 PENNSYLVANIA San Francisco 1978 Davenport 2000 Grand Rapids 1994 Harrisburg 1983 San Mateo County 1992 Des Moines 2001 Ypsilanti 1997 Lancaster 1991 Santa Cruz 1992 Iowa City 1977 Philadelphia 1982 Santa Cruz County 1998 MINNESOTA Pittsburgh 1990 Santa Monica 1984 KANSAS Minneapolis 1974 York 1993 West Hollywood 1984 Lawrence 1995 St. Paul 1990 RHODE ISLAND COLORADO KENTUCKY MISSOURI Providence 1995 Aspen 1977 Jefferson County 1999 Columbia 1992 Boulder 1987 Lexington 1999 Kansas City 1993 TEXAS Crested Butte 1993 Louisville 1999 St. Louis 1993 Austin 1975 Denver 1990 Fort Worth 2000 Telluride 1993 LOUISIANA NEVADA New Orleans 1991 Carson City 1999 VIRGINIA CONNECTICUT Alexandria 1997 Hartford 1977 MAINE NEW YORK Arlington County 1997 New Haven 1991 Bar Harbor 1998 Albany 1992 Charlottesville 1994 Stamford 1991 Castine 1999 Albany County 1996 Falmouth 1999 Ithaca 1984 WASHINGTON FLORIDA Long Island 1997 Nassau County 2000 King County 1988 Broward County 1995 Orono 1998 New York 1993 Seattle 1980 Gainesville 1999 Portland 1992 Onondaga County 1998 Spokane 1999 Key West 1991 South Portland 1998 Peekskill 2000 Miami Beach 1993 Rochester 2001 WISCONSIN Miami-Dade County 1998 MARYLAND Syracuse 1990 Madison 1979 Tampa 1992 Baltimore 1988 Tompkins County 1991 Milwaukee 1991 Howard County 1983 Village of Alfred 1974 GEORGIA Montgomery County 1984 Westchester County 1999 Atlanta 2000 Prince Georges County 1991 DeKalb County 2001 Rockville 1990

11 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

TABLE 2. Jurisdictions and Quasi-Governmental Agencies that Offer Domestic Partner Health Benefits

STATES Connecticut Minnesota California 1999 Mansfield 2000 Minneapolis Public Library 1993 Connecticut 2000 West Hartford 1998 Maine 2001 New Mexico New York 1995 Florida Albuquerque 2000 Oregon 1998 Broward County 1999 Rhode Island 2001 Broward County School District 2000 New York Vermont 1994 Gainesville 1999 Albany 2000 Washington 2001 Key West 1998 Ithaca 1997 Monroe County 1999 New York 1993 CITIES, COUNTIES AND West Palm Beach 1992 Rochester 1994 QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Eastchester 2001 Georgia Greenburgh 2000 Arizona Atlanta 1999 Westchester County 1998 Phoenix 2000 DeKalb County 2001 Pima County 1997 North Carolina Scottsdale 2001 Illinois Carrboro 1994 Tempe 1999 Chicago 1997 Chapel Hill 1995 Tucson 1997 Chicago Transit Authority 1999 Cook County 1999 Oregon California Oak Park 1994 Corvallis 1995 Alameda 1994 Eugene 1998 Alameda County 1996 Indiana Eugene Water & Electric Board 1998 Berkeley 1984 Bloomington 1997 Gresham 1999 Claremont 2000 Multnomah County 1993 Concord 2001 Iowa Portland 1994 Contra Costa County Iowa City 1994 Laguna Beach 1990 Pennsylvania Long Beach 2001 Louisiana Philadelphia 1998 Los Angeles 1988 New Orleans 1997 Pittsburgh 1999 Los Angeles County 1995 Los Angeles Unified School District 1998 Maine Rhode Island Marin County Bar Harbor 1999 Providence 2000 Metropolitan Water District of Southern Calif. 1998 Camden 2000 Providence Police Department 2001 Mission Viejo 2000 Maine Municipal Employees Health Trust 2000 Oakland 1996 Portland 2001 Vermont Petaluma 1999 Brattleboro 1999 Sacramento 1992 Maryland Burlington 1993 San Diego 1994 Baltimore 1995 Middlebury 1995 San Diego County 2001 Montgomery County 1999 San Francisco 1991 Takoma Park 1988 Washington San Luis Obispo County 2000 King County 1993 San Mateo County 1992 Massachusetts Lake Washington School District Santa Barbara 1998 Brookline 1998 Olympia 1994 Santa Barbara County 1999 Provincetown Seattle 1990 Santa Cruz 1986 Springfield 1997 Seattle Public Library 1990 Santa Cruz County 1989 Tumwater 1997 Santa Cruz Metro Transit System 1985 Michigan Vancouver 1998 Sonoma County 2000 Ann Arbor 1992 Ventura County 2000 Ann Arbor School District 2000 Wisconsin West Hollywood 1985 Ann Arbor School District 2001 Dane County 2000 Huron Valley School District Madison 1999 Colorado Kalamazoo 2000 Madison Metropolitan School District 1998 Denver 1996 Washtenaw County 2000 Milwaukee 2002 Summit County 2001

12 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE 2001

CHALLENGES AT THE BALLOT BOX private employers buy such policies or provide the benefits to their workers. The state’s new policy took effect July 1, 2001. Advances this year in Maryland and Maine may be headed to voters for final judgment. A poll of Maine voters shows the majority favor businesses’ offering benefits for domestic partners. A telephone survey of The Maryland law banning discrimination on the basis of 403 adults, conducted by Portland-based Critical Insights, sexual orientation in employment, housing and public found that about 57 percent of those polled support insuring accommodations won’t go into effect Oct. 1 as scheduled the domestic partners of unmarried employees, while 24 per- because the Maryland Board of Elections certified July 19, cent oppose the idea and about 18 percent are undecided.15 2001, that it had received enough signatures to place the issue on the state ballot in November 2002. Similar battles are being waged across the country. Voters in the Detroit suburb of Royal Oak rejected a proposed human In response, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland rights ordinance May 15 that sought to ban discrimination filed a lawsuit July 30 challenging the validity of 6,000 sig- based on sexual orientation. As of this writing, voter referen- natures. The ACLU claims that petitioners failed to include da were being proposed in at least six other municipalities to summaries of the law on some petitions. And it said other challenge civil rights protections: Broward County, Fla.; petitions lack the name or address of the person who circu- Houston; Huntington Woods, Mich.; Kalamazoo, Mich.; lated the petition. The suit also accuses leaders of the petition Miami; and Traverse City, Mich. drive of obtaining signatures “through fraud or misrepresen- tation” by falsely telling people that signing the petition was CHALLENGES IN THE COURTS in support of the gay rights law instead of for its repeal. Domestic partner benefits have been the target of court cases Advocates from both sides say the issue could draw cash and in jurisdictions across the country. In the past year, judges attention from across the nation and could become a signifi- heard arguments in at least nine separate cases concerning cant issue in the 2002 campaigns for the state’s governor and state and local domestic partner benefits. Some of those suits members of the Legislature. were brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, the legal arm of televangelist Pat Robertson’s Christian If the anti-gay forces succeed, Maryland would become the Coalition; others were spearheaded by the Northstar Legal second state to consider repeal by referendum of a law pro- Center, another conservative group devoted to litigating hibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, fol- against legal protections for gays and lesbians. lowing Maine, which has rejected civil rights protections for gays twice. In 1998, Maine voters repealed a statewide civil The suits generally claim that local jurisdictions exceeded their rights bill that had been signed into law a year earlier. And in home rule authority by enacting a domestic partner benefits 2000, Maine voters narrowly defeated Measure 6, a ballot ordinance and/or that the local ordinance violates the state’s initiative that would have amended the state’s human rights marriage law. Municipalities often argue that they have the measure to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation in right to manage their benefits programs and that they are sim- housing, employment, public accommodations and credit. ply responding to a trend in the private sector and need these policies to attract and retain qualified workers. Maine voters may have another issue to decide in 2002 — whether state employees should be offered domestic partner Often, the question of whether the locality has the power to benefits. A group of conservative religious activists enact a domestic partnership law turns on whether the state announced April 9, 2000, that they would seek a voter ref- statute creating the municipality gives it broad powers to reg- erendum to overturn the state’s new policy of providing ulate its own affairs or whether the statute expresses a more domestic partner benefits to its employees. At this writing, narrow scope of powers. As a result, the case law varies great- it was uncertain whether the groups would be successful in ly from state to state. In the past year, courts have refused to forcing a vote. overturn domestic partner benefits in Broward County, Fla.; Gainesville, Fla.; Madison, Wis.; Montgomery County, Md.; A group called the Ad Hoc Committee for Marriage and and Philadelphia. Family is also targeting a new Maine law that requires health insurance companies to offer policies that include domestic On Aug. 23, 2001, the Washington State Supreme Court partner benefits. The law does not, however, mandate that ruled 8-1 that the city of Vancouver can continue to provide 13 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

health benefits to the domestic partners of its gay and lesbian CHALLENGES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS employees. Vancouver resident Roni Heinsma challenged the BEFORE LEGISLATIVE BODIES policy shortly after it was adopted in 1998. Heinsma, who was represented by the conservative Northstar Legal Center Numerous other jurisdictions considered civil rights protec- of Fairfax, Va., argued that the city was creating “a kind of tions based on sexual orientation during the period covered mini-marriage in violation of the state law against same-sex in this report but failed to enact them. They include: marriage.”16 But a majority of the justices agreed that regula- tion of employee benefits is a local matter. Also at presstime, Akron, Ohio Glendale, Calif. Washington courts were being asked to consider the validity Birmingham, Ala. Houston of domestic partner benefits for state employees. And a law- Cedar Falls, Iowa Multnomah County, Ore. suit was pending in Alaska where several state employees Dallas New Rochelle, N.Y. with unmarried partners sued the state seeking benefits for Davis City, Calif. Louisville, Ky. their partners. Duluth, Minn. Polk County, Iowa Erie, Pa. Salem, Ore. In some cases, though, court rulings have led to the local Fort Wayne, Ind. Scottsdale, Ariz. laws’ being overturned and employees’ losing their benefits. One place where right-wing attacks on local ordinances have At least 13 jurisdictions considered domestic partner benefits been successful is Massachusetts, where a 40-year-old state but failed to enact them: insurance law limits the benefits local governments can pro- vide. Last year, plaintiffs supported by the American Center Albany, N.Y. Germantown, Tenn. for Law and Justice won a state Supreme Judicial Court rul- Baltimore Housing Hennepin County, Minn. ing that the city of Boston lacked the authority to offer Authority Houston domestic partner benefits to its own employees. While other Clark County, Nev. Minnesota localities in Massachusetts withdrew their programs after the Decatur, Ga. Mountain View, Calif. ruling, two cities — Cambridge and Springfield — decided Detroit Santa Clarita, Calif. to stand by their benefit programs. East Point, Ga. Tampa, Fla.

However, a state judge overturned Cambridge’s program on In Washington state, the Legislature was considering Nov. 2, 2000, in a challenge raised by the ACLJ. Activists whether to repeal domestic partner health insurance cov- have responded with a bill in the state Legislature granting erage for lesbian and gay state employees. Opponents of localities the power to offer domestic partnership benefits. At the benefits, granted in 2000 by the state Public this writing, the bill had passed the Senate, but the House Employees Benefits Board, considered a voter referendum had yet to act on it. on the issue, but instead were pushing lawmakers to resolve the issue. A battle over a non-discrimination policy in Iowa ended during the period covered by this report. Twenty-three State Sen. Dan Swecker, a Republican who introduced the Republican state legislators won a 6-month-long court chal- measure to overturn the benefits, also filed a lawsuit in lenge to Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack’s September 1999 Thurston County Superior Court, seeking to have the bene- executive order that prohibited the state from employment fits terminated. His lawsuit argued that the board exceeded discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender its authority and violated the state law that limits marriage to identity. The ruling in December 2000 found that Vilsack a man and a woman. had exceeded his authority as governor. Vilsack issued a new executive order March 28, 2001, in which he declared his And on March 13, 2001, the Henderson, Ky., City commitment to a state policy “to provide equal opportuni- Council voted 3-2 to repeal the city’s ordinance banning ty in state employment to all persons.” Republican state discrimination in housing, employment and public Sen. Steve King told the Des Moines Register that the latest accommodations based on sexual orientation. The council executive order, while constitutional, was an attempt “to had passed the ordinance by a 3-2 vote in 1999. However, give the protection of special rights for people based on self- the 2000 election tipped the balance on the council alleged behavior.”17 against the ordinance.

14 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE 2001

EQUAL BENEFITS ORDINANCES TABLE 3. Jurisdictions With Domestic Partner Registries

In 1997, San Francisco became the first jurisdiction in the country to require employers with city contracts to offer STATEWIDE REGISTRIES MARYLAND equal benefits to their employees’ domestic partners. Since California 1999 Takoma Park 1993 then, five other localities have followed suit: Los Angeles; Hawaii 1997 Seattle; Berkeley, Calif.; San Mateo County, Calif.; and MASSACHUSETTS Tumwater, Wash. (effective Jan. 2, 2002). All but one of CALIFORNIA Boston 1993 Berkeley 1991 Brewster 1995 these laws apply to all spousal benefits offered by an employ- Cathedral 1997 Brookline 1993 er, including but not limited to bereavement leave, family Davis 1994 Cambridge 1992 and medical leave, health insurance benefits, membership Laguna Beach 1990 Nantucket 1996 discounts and relocation benefits. The ordinance in San Long Beach 1997 Provincetown 1993 Mateo County, which went into effect July 1, 2001, specifi- Los Angeles County 1999 cally excludes pension and retirement benefits. Marin County 1993 MICHIGAN Oakland 1996 Ann Arbor 1991 These laws have led more than 3,000 employers to provide Palm Springs 2000 East Lansing 1991 equal benefits to employees’ unmarried partners. Palo Alto 1995 Petaluma 1999 MINNESOTA Because it was the first, San Francisco’s law has come under fire Sacramento 1992 Minneapolis 1991 San Francisco 1990 from conservatives. In an important legal victory, the 9th U.S. Santa Barbara 1997 MISSOURI Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on June 14, 2001, Santa Barbara County 1999 St. Louis 1997 rejected arguments by S.D. Myers Inc., an Ohio electrical com- Santa Monica 1995 pany, that the law was unconstitutional because it interfered with West Hollywood 1985 NEW YORK 18 interstate commerce. The court said any burden on interstate Albany 1996 commerce “does not clearly outweigh the city’s legitimate inter- COLORADO Ithaca 1990 est in applying the ordinance to those with whom it contracts.” Boulder 1996 New York 1993 Denver 2000 Rochester 1993 The company sued after it lost a contract to do maintenance on Westchester County 2001 city-owned transformers because it refused on religious grounds CONNECTICUT to abide by the law. The company was represented by the Hartford 1993 NORTH CAROLINA Carrboro 1994 American Center for Law and Justice. The S.D. Myers decision FLORIDA Chapel Hill 1995 did not completely answer questions raised in a separate case in Broward County 1999 which United Airlines, represented by the Air Transport Key West 1998 OREGON 19 Association, is challenging the law. That case is still pending. Monroe County 1998 Ashland 1999 Multnomah County 2001 DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRIES GEORGIA Atlanta 1993 PENNSYLVANIA Two states and 56 cities and counties have established Philadelphia 1998 domestic partner registries that, in some cases, allow lesbian ILLINOIS and gay couples to obtain certain rights and benefits, such as Village of Oak Park 1997 TEXAS hospital and jail visitation, child care leave and certain Travis County 1993 IOWA parental rights. (See Table 3.) Although these laws do not Iowa City 1994 WASHINGTON require employers to provide benefits to employees’ domestic Lacey 2000 partners, some employers use the registries’ definition of LOUISIANA Olympia 2000 domestic partner as a guide for determining eligibility for New Orleans 1993 Seattle 1994 their own benefits policies. Tumwater 1999 MAINE Since August 2000, at least three jurisdictions have estab- Portland 2001 WISCONSIN lished domestic partner registries: Oak Park, Ill., Portland, Madison 1998 Maine, and Westchester County, N.Y. Milwaukee 1999

15 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001

CHAPTER 2 WORKPLACEAdvances in the Private Sector

Private employers continue to take steps NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES THAT INCLUDE SEXUAL ORIENTATION aimed at making their workplace more hospitable to lesbian, gay, bisexual and As of Aug. 15, 2001, HRC WorkNet had identified 2,001 compa- transgender workers. These steps include: nies, colleges and universities, state and local governments and feder- al agencies that had written non-discrimination policies that includ- > adopting a written non-discrimination pol- ed sexual orientation. This represents an increase of 293 employers, icy that covers sexual orientation and, ide- or 17 percent, in one year. (For a complete list of these employers, ally, gender identity, that is in the employ- visit the HRC WorkNet website at www.hrc.org/worknet). ee handbook, widely publicized to the work force, covers all aspects of employ- The Fortune 500 and the Private Sector ment and is consistently enforced; At this writing, 294, or 59 percent, of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies. > implementing a benefits program that This represents an increase of 39 companies, or 15 percent, over the treats employees’ domestic partners equal prior year. (For complete list of Fortune 500 companies with non- to married spouses including, but not lim- discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, see ited to, the provision of health insurance, Appendix 1.) pension and retirement benefits, life insur- ance, bereavement leave and family leave; The closer a company is to the top of the Fortune 500 list, the more likely it is to have such a policy. A total of 79 percent of the > recognizing and supporting an LGBT Fortune 100 and 88 percent of the Fortune 50 prohibit sexual employee resource group; orientation discrimination. (See Figure 4.)

> providing diversity awareness education for The total number of employees who are potentially covered by all employees that addresses sexual orienta- non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation at tion and gender identity issues; Fortune 500 companies is 16.9 million.20 (There were about 147.5 million workers in the United States in 1999, according to > respectful and appropriate marketing and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.) advertising to LGBT consumers and/or investors; Colleges and Universities At least 336 colleges and universities include sexual orientation in > ongoing charitable support for LGBT and their non-discrimination policies. These include 45 of the top 50 HIV/AIDS community organizations;

> respect for employees’ right to bargain col- TABLE 4. Number of Employers With Non-Discrimination lectively to obtain anti-discrimination pro- Policies That Include Sexual Orientation tections and equal benefits. In some loca- tions, a collective bargaining agreement may be the only source of real protection Fortune 500 Companies 294 LGBT employees have. Other Private-Sector Employers 1,083 (Includes Non-Profits and Labor Organizations) > endorsement of the Employment Non- Colleges and Universities 336 Discrimination Act (see Appendix 3 for a list of companies that have endorsed State and Local Governments 250 ENDA). Federal Departments and Agencies 38 17 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

national universities and 33 of the nation’s top 50 liberal arts colleges, according to the 2002 U.S. News and World Report college rankings.

DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS21 The number of employers that provide domestic partner health insurance benefits has increased at a rapid pace in the last several years, growing a full 50 percent from 2,856 employers in August 1999 — the first year in this series of reports — to 4,285 in August 2001.

The 4,285 employers that the Human Rights Campaign Foundation identified as of Aug. 15, 2001, include private companies, colleges and universities and state and local govern- ments. That number is up from 3,572 employers in August 2000. This was an increase of 713 employers, or 20 percent, in FIGURE 4. Percent of Fortune Companies That Include Sexual Orientation In the 12 months covered by this report. (For a complete list of these employers, visit the HRC WorkNet website at Their Non-Discrimination Policy www.hrc.org/worknet).

Employers that offer domestic partner health benefits oper- ate in all 50 states. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Washington lead in the number of employers pro- viding such benefits. The states of Washington and Michigan have experienced the highest increase in the 59% 73% 79% 88% number of employers that offer domestic partner benefits in Fortune 500 Fortune 250 Fortune 100 Fortune 50 the past year. (See Figure 5.)

Of the 4,285 employers, data on 3,087 were provided to HRC WorkNet by the cities of San Francisco, Seattle and TABLE 5. Number of Private-Sector Employers That Include Sexual Los Angeles in July 2001. These cities track compliance with 22 Orientation in Their Non-Discrimination Policies, By Industry local ordinances that require employers with city contracts to provide equal benefits to their employees’ domestic partners.

Communications, Technology and Media Firms 373 While the overall trend toward offering domestic partner benefits remains steady, employers seem to be extending the Utilities, Engineering and Manufacturing 199 benefits in reaction to different stimuli. For instance, the Insurance and Health Care 136 pace at which employers have been adding the benefits as a Consumer Products and Home Furnishings 134 result of local contracting requirements has declined since 1997, when the San Francisco law first went into effect, Banking and Financial Services 123 while the pace at which employers are adding them inde- Law Firms 110 pendent of city laws has risen. So far in 2001, the Human Associations and Non-Profits 93 Rights Campaign has identified more employers that have added the benefits independent of city contracting laws Food Services 59 requiring them to do so than in any year since it has tracked Advertising, Marketing and Management Consulting 42 the trend. (See Figure 6.) Transportation 41 It appears that the economic slowdown following the burst Unions and Labor Organizations 33 of the high-tech bubble has not had an impact on the rate of Hotels and Entertainment 21 DP benefits implementation — but it may be too early to Clothing 13 tell. HRC WorkNet has theorized that the tight labor market 18 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE 2001

has been a factor in employers’ using enhanced benefits packages to attract talent.23 With the unemployment rate creeping up over the past year, that may portend companies backing off extending new benefits.

Even if the economy gives some companies pause, employers have come to realize that these more progressive benefits help them recruit and retain workers. The policies highlighted in this report are low-cost, yet help position a company as an employer of choice. Further, HRC WorkNet expects that any FIGURE 5. Number of Employers That Offer Domestic Partner impact from the economic slowdown may be offset by Health Benefits, By State employers adding the benefits as equal benefits ordinances in Seattle, Los Angeles and other locales are fully implemented. More than 75 25-74 4000 Studies Confirm Rise In Domestic Partner Benefits Fewer than 25 Two recent studies confirmed the dramatic increase in domestic partner benefits over the past few years. 3500 A survey released Nov. 28, 2001, by Hewitt Associates, a benefits consulting firm based in Lincolnshire, Ill., found that the number of companies that offer DP benefits has doubled since 1997. Nearly 90 percent of companies offer- 3000 ing the benefits began to do so in the past five years, and 35 percent of those that did not yet provide them indicated they were considering doing so within the next three years.24 Hewitt’s results were based on a survey of 570 large U.S. 2500 employers.

The Society for Human Resource Management found, in a survey released in April 2001, that 16 percent of the group’s 2000 members work at companies that offer DP benefits to same- sex partners. The SHRM questionnaire also found that organizations with 2,500 or more employees were more like- ly to offer DP health benefits to same-sex domestic partners 1500 than smaller companies.25

In addition, a New Jersey-based market research company, Opinion Research Corp., conducted a survey to determine the advantages of offering DP benefits. Seventy-one percent of 1000 major corporations surveyed cited the increased visibility of the company’s diversity commitment as the No. 1 reason for adopting the benefits. Fifty-three percent and 47 percent said retention of employees and improved relations with gay and 500 lesbian markets, respectively, are among the other advantages.26

100

1980s 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 FIGURE 6. Number of Employers That Offer Domestic Partner Health Benefits, By Year Employers that added domestic partner health benefits, but were not required to by local law Employers that added domestic partner health benefits because of local contracting requirements 19 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

All 3,087 employers complying with local equal benefits laws FIGURE 7. Percent of Employers Offering Domestic Partner Benefits offer domestic partner benefits to same- and opposite-sex to Same-Sex Couples vs. Both Same- and Opposite-Sex Couples28 domestic partners because that’s how these laws were written. However, even in the absence of a law, most employers that offer these benefits make them available to opposite-sex 27 Same-Sex domestic partners as well. (See Figure 7.) Couples Only The Fortune 500 and the Private Sector 34% The trend toward offering domestic partner benefits is clear- est in the Fortune 500, where America’s largest companies are increasingly making domestic partner benefits a standard 66% practice. The number of Fortune 500 companies offering DP benefits has more than doubled in the past three years, from 61 in 1998 to 145 in 2001. In fact, more Fortune 500 Same- and Opposite-Sex Couples companies — 36 — have added domestic partner benefits in 2001 than in any year since the HRC Foundation has *Excluding data from San Francisco tracked the trend. (For a complete list of Fortune 500 com- *Human Rights Commission panies that offer domestic partner health benefits, see Appendix 1.)

Among the Fortune 500 companies that announced or implemented DP benefits in the period covered by this report are: Philip Morris, Boeing, Dell Computer, BellSouth, First Union and Gillette.

Trends among the Fortune 500 suggest that the more suc- cessful companies offer domestic partner benefits. While 29 percent of the Fortune 500 companies provide DP benefits, 54 percent of Fortune 50 companies offer the benefits. The closer a company is to the top of the Fortune 500 list, the more likely it is to provide domestic partner health benefits. (See Figure 9.)

The high-tech industry remains the leader in providing 8 121621376179109145 domestic partner benefits. A 1999 survey by the Kaiser 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational FIGURE 8. Fortune 500 Companies That Offer Domestic Partner Health Trust found that the majority of high-tech firms — 53 Benefits, By Year29 percent — offered health benefits to domestic partners, the only industry surveyed where a preponderance of companies had such policies.30

TABLE 6. Number of Employers That Offer Domestic Partner Health Benefits Following the leader As HRC WorkNet continues to observe, when one com- pany in an industry extends domestic partner benefits, many of its competitors follow. This trend has contin- Fortune 500 Companies 145 ued across several industry sectors during the period covered by this report, most noticeably in the airline, Other Private-Sector Employers 3,872 management consulting/accounting and telecommuni- (Includes Non-Profits and Labor Organizations) cations industries. Colleges and Universities 155 State and Local Governments 113 20 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE 2001

Two years after United Airlines became the first major airline to announce domestic partner health benefits for its employ- ees, nine of the top 10 U.S. passenger airlines have similar plans. The last, Trans World Airlines, which already extends benefits to management employees, will expand them to all employees next year.

United’s decision July 31, 1999, to offer DP benefits was fol- lowed later the same week by announcements from American and US Airways. Those moves helped spark others in the industry. In the past year, Delta, Southwest, America West and Alaska Airlines, joined Northwest and Continental in unveiling similar benefits for their unmarried workers.

On Feb. 6, 2001, Ernst & Young became the last of the Big Five accounting firms to announce that it would offer bene- fits to its employees’ domestic partners. In April 1999, FIGURE 9. Percent of Fortune Companies That Offer KPMG was the first firm to provide the benefits. Domestic Partner Health Benefits PricewaterhouseCoopers took a similar step later in the year, as did Deloitte & Touche and Accenture in 2000.

In the telecommunications industry, BellSouth Corp. became the last of the former Baby Bells to announce domes- 29% 38% 49% 54% tic partner benefits. BellSouth, based in Atlanta, announced Fortune 500 Fortune 250 Fortune 100 Fortune 50 to employees Dec. 14, 2000, that it would extend health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex domestic part- ners of its managerial employees beginning July 1, 2001. Several of the original seven Baby Bells had implemented TABLE 7. Number of Private Sector Employers That Include Sexual Orientation in domestic partner benefits before merging with other Their Non-Discrimination Policies, By Industry31 telecommunications companies. One of the last major telecommunications companies that does not provide DP benefits is Kansas-based Sprint Corp. Communications, Technology and Media Firms 299 Some other industry sectors are not as far along, but policy Law Firms 118 changes are occurring. In the aerospace industry, for Insurance and Health Care 98 instance, Siemens became the third major corporation in this industry to extend benefits to domestic partners on Jan. 1, Associations and Non-Profits 88 2001, after Boeing and Honeywell. Banking and Financial Services 66 Utilities, Engineering and Manufacturing 55 Colleges and Universities HRC has identified 153 colleges and universities that pro- Advertising, Marketing and Management Consulting 53 vide domestic partner benefits, a 30 percent increase since Consumer Products and Home Furnishings 45 August 2000. These include 34 of the nation’s top 50 uni- Unions and Labor Organizations 40 versities and 29 of the nation’s top 50 liberal arts colleges according to the 2002 U.S. News and World Report college Transportation 27 rankings. (For a complete list of colleges and universities Food Services 20 with domestic partner benefits, visit www.hrc.org.) Hotels and Entertainment 18 Clothing 8

21 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001

CHAPTER 3 WORKPLACETransgender Issues in the Workplace

“Transgender” is a broad term that encompasses cross-dressers, intersexed people, transsexuals and people who live substantial portions of their lives as other than their birth sex. Generally speaking, a transgender person exhibits a sense of self, the physical characteristics and/or personal expression commonly associated with the sex other than the one he or she manifested at birth. A transitioning transgender person is one who is modifying his or her phys- ical characteristics and manner of expression to, in effect, satisfy the standards for membership in another gender.

In the past year, HRC WorkNet observed increased interest is different from a woman who is not a lesbian. Consequently, among employers regarding gender identity issues. Much of it is conceivable that an employee working in a job where sex- this appears to have been the result of individual employees ual orientation discrimination is prohibited could be discrimi- raising the issue and/or seeking, in varying degrees, to tran- nated against for gender nonconformity, which is why an sition from one sex to the other while continuing to work. In increasing number of employers have or are considering addition, several gender identity organizations have been adding gender identity to their non-discrimination policies. actively working for several years to change non-discrimina- tion policies and health insurance benefits to protect and LAWS PROHIBITING GENDER IDENTITY DISCRIMINATION assist gender-variant employees. Plus, HRC WorkNet has sought to raise awareness of the issue with human resources Two states, the District of Columbia and 32 local govern- groups and in the media, resulting in articles in the past year ments have enacted laws that provide protections for trans- in both trade and mainstream publications, including The gender employees in either the public or private sector. On Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. July 17, 2001, Rhode Island became the second state to ban gender identity discrimination through legislative action. HRC WorkNet has provided advice and assistance to numer- The measure became law without a signature by GOP Gov. ous employers grappling with these questions. The project Lincoln Almond. Minnesota was the first state to provide has created web-based resources (see www.hrc.org/worknet) such protections, in 1993. (See Table 8.) that address in detail issues related to gender transitioning on the job. A complete list of employers prohibiting gender Rhode Island’s law forbids schools, banks, employers and identity discrimination is also available through the website. other non-religious institutions from discrimination on the basis of “gender identity and expression,” in addition to pre- Transitioning employees often face workplace challenges that vious protections based on race, religion, sex, nationality, may significantly exceed those presented by certain more age, disability and sexual orientation. “acceptable” manifestations of gender nonconformity. For instance, in some workplaces, a woman’s decision to forgo Three other states have extended protections to transgender skirts, blouses, jewelry and cosmetics and to begin dressing people on the job, but not through legislative action. in a masculine style might result in little more than raised Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and eyebrows or a few whispered comments. Yet in almost any Opportunities decided in 2000 that transsexual people may workplace today, the water cooler would be buzzing if a bring a claim under that state’s non-discrimination law. woman staffer decided to take male sex hormones and Also, a New Jersey appeals court ruled on July 3, 2000, that undergo a double mastectomy, and to begin identifying, discrimination based on gender-nonconformity is covered by dressing and behaving as a man. the state law against gender and disability discrimination. In New York, a few courts have held that transsexual people are For many gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, sex- protected under the state’s sex discrimination law. ual orientation and gender expression are interwoven. For instance, for some lesbians, being “lesbian” not only is about During the 12 months covered by this report, Rhode Island having a sexual attraction to other women, but also is about a and at least five municipalities enacted laws to protect gender- certain dress, manner or style – a way of expressing gender that variant people. De Kalb, Ill., Madison, Wis., and Portland, 23 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

Ore., enacted new laws to cover employees in public and pri- Transgender advocates consider basic coverage for transsexu- vate workplaces. Houston and Multnomah County, Ore., al health insurance to include:34 banned discrimination against transgender employees in the public work force. This is about the same number of jurisdic- > Psychological counseling, for the initial diagnosis, for tions that enacted such protections last year.32 guidance through the transition, and to obtain approval for surgery, if necessary; Meanwhile, protections disappeared in one state — Iowa — > Hormone replacement therapy (HRT); where Republican lawmakers were successful in their legal challenge to Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack’s executive order > Doctor’s office visits for HRT-related lab work; protecting transgender workers in the state work force. > Sex reassignment surgery; or CORPORATIONS ADDRESS GENDER IDENTITY > Other care, such as a mastectomy or hysterectomy, elec- trolysis, cosmetic surgeries, speech therapy, hair implants The Human Rights Campaign has identified 20 private and image consulting. employers, including five Fortune 500 companies — AMR (parent company of American Airlines), Apple Computer, On April 30, 2001, San Francisco became the first city in the Lexmark International, Lucent Technologies, and Xerox country to include coverage for sex change procedures in its Corp. — that include “gender identity” in their non-dis- employee benefits package. (The state of Minnesota had crimination policies. Other employers that provide such pro- offered similar benefits, but the program was phased out in tections include Agere Systems Inc., Avaya Inc., Trillium 1998.) The plan covers claims up to $50,000 toward the cost Asset Management and the law firm Patterson, Belknap, of therapies and surgeries needed for sex reassignment. Webb & Tyler LLP. Private employers such as Lucent Technologies and its spin- off Avaya have provided similar benefits. Health insurance plans that most people receive through work generally cover care deemed medically necessary. For Male-to-female surgery typically costs about $37,000, and transsexual people, employers typically argue that sex- female-to-male surgery runs about $77,000.35 San change operations and other associated procedures are Francisco’s benefits also would cover hormones and other elective and thus not covered. The medical world has, procedures. Employees would have to work for the city at since the late 1970s, recognized that is not the case.33 least one year before they would be eligible. Some corporations have acknowledged the difficulty that some transgender individuals have in obtaining the health San Francisco estimated that it has 14 transgender employ- care that they need. ees out of its 37,000 workers.36

24 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE 2001

TABLE 8. Jurisdictions that Prohibit Employment Discrimination Based on Gender Identity

Type of Employers Covered State Jurisdiction Year Enacted Public Private Method of Coverage for Gender Identity Arizona Tucson 1999 • • Uses term “gender identity” California San Francisco 1994 • • Uses term “gender identity” Santa Cruz 1992 • • Included in definition of gender Santa Cruz County 1998 • • Included in definition of gender West Hollywood 1998 • • Uses term “gender identity” Colorado Boulder 2000 • • Uses term “gender identity” District of Columbia Washington 1999 • • Included in definition of personal appearance Georgia Atlanta 2000 • Uses term “gender identity” Decatur 2000 • Uses term “gender identity” Illinois De Kalb 2000 • • Uses term “gender” Evanston 1997 • • Included in definition of sexual orientation Iowa Iowa City 1995 • • Uses term “gender identity” Kentucky Jefferson County 1999 • • Uses term “gender identity” Lexington 1999 • • Uses term “gender identity” Louisville 1999 • • Uses term “gender identity” Louisiana New Orleans 1998 • • Uses term “gender identification” Massachusetts Cambridge 1992 • • Included in definition of gender Michigan Ann Arbor 1999 • • Uses term “gender identity” Grand Rapids 1994 • • Uses term “gender orientation” Ypsilanti 1997 • • Included in definition of sexual orientation Minnesota Minneapolis 1975 • • Included in definition of “affectional preference” St. Paul 1990 • • Included in definition of sexual or affectional orientation State of Minnesota 1993 • • Included in definition of sexual orientation Ohio Toledo 1998 • • Included in definition of sexual orientation Oregon County of Benton 1998 • • Uses term “gender identity” Multnomah County 2001 • Uses term “gender identity” Portland 2000 • • Uses term “gender identity” Pennsylvania Harrisburg 1983 • • Included in definition of sex Pittsburgh 1997 • • Included in definition of sex York 1998 • • Included in definition of sexual orientation Rhode Island State of Rhode Island 2001 • • Uses term “gender identity” Texas Houston 2001 • Uses term “gender identity” Washington Olympia 1997 • Uses term “gender identity” Seattle 1986 • • Uses term “gender identity” Wisconsin Madison 2000 • • Uses term “gender identity”

25 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001

CHAPTER 4 WORKPLACEMajor Gains and Losses in 2000-2001

SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM ny’s continued refusal to reinstate the former Mobil’s written non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation and to In 1998, the Securities and Exchange Commission revised a open its domestic partner benefits program to all gay and les- rule that had allowed corporations to exclude shareholder bian employees. proposals related to employment matters. Since then, LGBT activists have found shareholder proposals to be an increas- In December 1999 when Exxon merged with Mobil, it ingly important tool in compelling corporations to add sex- became the first U.S. employer ever to rescind a non-dis- ual orientation to their non-discrimination policies.37 crimination policy covering sexual orientation. At the same time, executives closed Mobil’s domestic partner benefits Since the rule change, resolutions have been filed at numer- program to any additional employees. ous corporations. Chrysler Corp. (now DaimlerChrysler), American Home Products, General Electric, McDonald’s, In the aftermath of the merger, the Human Rights ExxonMobil, American International Group and Johnson & Campaign, along with a coalition of others, worked vigor- Johnson have all been the target of shareholder actions aimed ously to have the policies reinstated. A key part of the strat- at adding sexual orientation to their non-discrimination egy for creating change at ExxonMobil is through a series of policies. shareholder resolutions. Since 1999, there have been three shareholder resolutions asking the company to add the words Shareholder proposals rarely capture more than 10 percent of “sexual orientation” to its non-discrimination policy. the vote, especially when they are opposed by the company’s Support for the shareholder resolution has built steadily each board of directors. But winning isn’t everything. Often, the year. At the 1999 Exxon shareholder meeting, the resolution proposal sparks a discussion within management and with garnered more than 3 percent of the vote, enough to be advocates for equal treatment in the workplace that lead to raised again the following year. change. That was the case at Home Depot, when it changed its policy to include sexual orientation rather than face a In the spring of 2000, HRC publicly supported the second shareholder action. shareholder resolution sponsored by the New York City Employees Retirement System, the Equality Project and oth- On May 11, 2001, Home Depot agreed to add sexual orien- ers on the same topic. (HRC had just received a gift of 140 tation as a protected category in its written equal employ- shares of ExxonMobil stock and the HRC board directed ment opportunity policy rather than face a divisive share- staff to hold the securities to allow for HRC representation holder vote. The Unitarian Universalist Association had suc- at the shareholders meeting.) The proposal garnered 8.3 per- cessfully sponsored a shareholder proposal asking the com- cent of the vote — the most of any of the shareholder reso- pany to amend its non-discrimination policy. Home Depot lutions on the ballot and 2.3 percent more than was needed publicly opposed such a change in its proxy statement. The to bring it back for a third year. Unitarian Universalist Association agreed May 11 to with- draw the proposal, which would have come to a vote at the In 2001, HRC co-filed a shareholder resolution with the shareholder meeting May 30 in Atlanta. New York City Employees Retirement System, the Equality Project and several others asking ExxonMobil to reinstate a McDonald’s and General Electric have also amended their written policy barring discrimination based on sexual orien- EEO policies even though shareholder proposals on the issue tation. The measure garnered 13 percent of the vote, a 75 failed or were withdrawn. percent increase over 2000 and the highest percentage of any shareholder resolution on the ballot. ExxonMobil On June 13, 2001, the Human Rights Campaign called for It is highly likely that shareholder activists will raise the issue a nationwide boycott of ExxonMobil because of the compa- at the 2002 shareholder meeting.

27 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

ExxonMobil is also an exception to the trend of following v. Louisville, rejected all of his arguments, writing that the competitors. Chevron, Sunoco, Atlantic Richfield, BP mere fact that some people might object to complying with Amoco, Shell and Texaco explicitly prohibit discrimination the ordinance on religious grounds is insufficient to render it based on sexual orientation; BP Amoco, Chevron and Shell an unconstitutional restriction on free exercise of religion.38 also offer domestic partner benefits. The judge also ruled that it is well accepted that businesses cannot invoke a freedom of association right to discriminate. Meanwhile, AT&T shareholders overwhelmingly rejected a Hyman has appealed, and the case was pending before the measure at their meeting May 23, 2001, to remove sexual 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. orientation from the company’s non-discrimination policy. The proposal garnered fewer votes than any other on the Supreme Court Upholds proxy — 86 percent of shareholders voted against removing Arbitration Clause in Employment Contract sexual orientation from the company’s policy and 6.9 percent In Circuit City v. Adams, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that voted in favor of the change. victims of discrimination may be denied their day in court if their employment contract forces them to waive their right It was the first time the shareholder process was used to try to sue.39 Saint Clair Adams, a sales representative at a Circuit to remove workplace protections based on sexual orientation. City store in California, had been the victim of homophobic AT&T’s board of directors had recommended a vote against harassment and discrimination at work. The 9th Circuit the initiative. “This proposal would negatively impact our Court of Appeals refused to a enforce Circuit City’s employ- workplace environment, and the resolution would not be in ment contract, which requires that employees submit all dis- the best interests of the company. We also strive to create an putes to an arbitrator, and allowed Adams to sue under environment that enhances creativity and innovation where California’s anti-discrimination statute. The Supreme Court our employees work well together to better serve our cus- reversed that ruling 5-4, holding that such arbitration claus- tomers,” the board said in its proxy statement. es in employment contracts are not excepted from the Federal Arbitration Act. NOTABLE COURT CASES Arbitration agreements can make it harder to take discrimi- As laws protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination or nators to task, as workers have fewer rights in arbitration offering domestic partner benefits have proliferated, they proceedings than they do in court. Opponents of arbitration have increasingly become the target of legal challenges by the agreements believe the process can often be tilted toward right. Many of the cases are brought by the conservative employers, and most employees presented with arbitration American Center for Law and Justice, based in Virginia agreements have little choice but to sign them. Following the Beach, Va., and the Northstar Legal Center of Fairfax, Va. U.S. Supreme Court case, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Conservatives have relied on two types of arguments in their introduced a bill to limit the use of binding arbitration agree- attempts to have courts strike down these popularly enacted ments between employers and employees. measures — the charge that local governments lack the authority to enact them and the claim that such laws violate Federal Courts Continue To Issue Mixed Rulings on Title VII the First Amendment rights of would-be discriminators. Highlighting the need for passage of the Employment Non- Local non-discrimination and DP benefits ordinances have Discrimination Act, employment discrimination cases by gay mostly withstood these challenges, although the right wing and lesbian plaintiffs under Title VII continued to meet with has had some limited success. mixed success. Some gay and lesbian plaintiffs have been able to gain protection by arguing that they were discriminated Court Upholds Kentucky City’s Rights Ordinance against for failing to conform to gender stereotypes. A U.S. A closely watched gay rights ordinance in Louisville, Ky., is District Court in Massachussetts allowed such a claim to still standing after an attack in federal court. The law pro- proceed in Ianetta v. Putnam Investments,40 and the 2nd hibits discrimination in both public and private employ- Circuit Court of Appeals, while dismissing a claim for sexu- ment. J. Barrett Hyman, a doctor claiming his religious al orientation discrimination in Simonton v. Runyon,41 noted beliefs require him to discriminate against homosexuals, was that the claim may be actionable if “repackaged” as a claim the plaintiff in an ACLJ-backed suit to overturn the ordi- of discrimination based on gender stereotyping. nance. Hyman claimed the ordinance restricted his First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech and association. The U.S. District Court, ruling March 21, 2001, in Hyman 28 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE 2001

Supreme Court Lets Massachusetts Discrimination Law Extends Out of State “Bisexual Harassment” Exemption to Title VII Stand Following a ruling in state court, the Massachusetts The Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a married couple Commission Against Discrimination announced that it who said they were sexually harassed at work by the same would hear claims brought by out-of-state employees against supervisor, letting stand a ruling that said a key federal law Massachusetts-based employers. The ruling allows Massa- does not apply to bisexual harrasers. chusetts anti-discrimination law to offer protection to some workers in other states, including states where gay and les- The court, on Oct. 2, 2001, turned away the appeal of bian employees are not protected. The announcement fol- Steven and Karen Holman, who work together in the main- lowed a ruling in Massachusetts state court, Crandall v. tenance department of the Indiana Department of Boston Concession Group, allowing employees from Maine to Transportation. They sued the state and the department in sue their employer in Massachusetts court for anti-gay dis- 1997 over the alleged conduct of their supervisor, shop fore- crimination that occurred in Maine.44 man Gale Uhrich. In the lawsuit, Karen Holman alleged that Uhrich had been harassing her since late 1995 — touching her body, standing too close and asking her to go to bed with him. Her husband alleged that Uhrich had begun in the summer of 1995 to ask him for sexual favors.

A federal judge threw out the sexual-harassment allegation in the Holmans’ lawsuit, and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal in May 2000.

“Title VII does not cover the ‘equal opportunity’ or ‘bisexu- al’ harasser ... because such a person is not discriminating on the basis of sex,” the appeals court ruled. “He is not treating one sex better or worse than the other; he is treating both sexes the same albeit badly.”42

Lesbian Fired From Publicly Funded Religious Charity Loses Discrimination Suit In a case highlighting the dangers of President Bush’s plan to funnel taxpayer money to religious charities, a therapist fired from the Kentucky Baptist Home for Children for being a lesbian lost her discrimination suit in federal court. The home had claimed that the religious beliefs of Alicia Pedreira, a social worker fired from the home Oct. 23, 1998, as a les- bian, were incompatible with the Baptist beliefs it wished to instill in the children she worked with. More than half of the home’s budget comes from taxpayer money. Pedreira, assisted by the ACLU, sued, claiming she had been discriminated against for her religious beliefs and that the public funding of the religious charity was unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court for the District of Kentucky dismissed Pedreira’s employment complaint, however, holding in Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Home for Children that she had been fired for her “behavior” and not because of her religion. The court allowed her claim challenging the constitutionality of the government funding to such a program to proceed.43

29 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001 WORKPLACECONCLUSIONS

Domestic partner benefits have spread at a rapid pace in the In addition, domestic partners aren’t treated equally under last several years, increasing by a full 50 percent from 2,856 the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of employers in August 1999 — the first year in this series of 1995 (COBRA), which requires companies with 20 or more reports — to 4,285 in August 2001. In that first report, employees to continue medical benefits to spouses and HRC WorkNet attributed the bulk of the increase to San dependent children in the event of death, divorce, reduction Francisco’s landmark equal benefits ordinance. In the past in hours, termination of employment, Medicare entitlement, year, however, increases due to local laws like San Francisco’s and change in dependent status. However, some employers have been more modest and the overall trend seems to be do include domestic partners, at least with respect to exten- attributable to sheer market forces. This is good news — but sion of health insurance benefits — something HRC encour- also reason for caution in the coming months. ages in the absence of full legal protection for GLBT families.

Because the economy has slowed in 2001 and some market And there are other inequities that need to be addressed as sectors are cutting production and laying off workers, well. For example, medical savings accounts cannot be used employers may become more cautious about offering any to reimburse a domestic partner’s medical expenses and a kinds of benefits they consider “extras.” It’s possible that domestic partner cannot automatically receive pension ben- some employers may put domestic partner benefits in that efits in the event of his or her partner’s death. category, which would be a mistake. Domestic partner ben- efits are not an “extra,” they are an essential for gay and les- So while the progress is significant and demonstrable, much bian employees, who cannot get married and thus are not remains to be done. Protections for transgender and gender- eligble for workplace benefits that have traditionally been variant employees are still very much the exception, and the tied to marriage. They also continue to be a low-cost method level of ignorance around this issue is sometimes daunting. of attracting and keeping employees, which is a bottom-line Religious political extremists continue to attack our commu- consideration as well. nity’s gains at the ballot box and in the courts. Yet employers, both private and public, continue to implement forward- In addition, employers must keep in mind the changing thinking policies and legislators are passing inclusive laws — composition of the American family. Data from the 2000 a clear demonstration that basic workplace equality is good for census released this year show 5.5 million Americans are liv- business and good for American workers, consumers and ing in “unmarried partner” households, up from 3.2 million investors. in 1990. And the number of unmarried partner households willing to identify themselves to the census appears to be growing at a faster rate than married partner households. The number of same-sex partner households also appears to have grown dramatically, with such families present in 99.3 percent of all counties in the United States.44

At the same time, domestic partner benefits are not the be- all for GLBT employees who are seeking parity. Unlike health insurance benefits routinely paid to married spouses, domestic partner benefits are taxable income to the employ- ee, and the premiums to pay for these benefits come from the worker’s after-tax dollars (not pre-tax, as they do for married workers). The Human Rights Campaign continues to call for changes in the tax code to ameliorate these discrepancies.

31 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

APPENDIX 1 Fortune 500 Policies

A Rank in Fortune 500 E Domestic Partner Health Benefits Offered B Company Name F DP Benefits Offered Only to Same-Sex Domestic Partners C Location of Corporate Headquarters G DP Benefits Offered to Same- and Opposite-Sex Domestic Par D Non-Discrimination Policy Includes Sexual Orientation H Year of Implementation for Domestic Partner Benefits

AB C D E FG H 3 General Motors Detroit, MI Y Y • 2000 4 Ford Motor Co. Dearborn, MI Y Y • 2000 5 General Electric Fairfield, CT Y 6 Citigroup Inc. New York, NY Y Y • 2000 7 Enron Corp. Houston, TX Y Y 8 IBM Armonk, NY Y Y • 1997 9 AT&T New York, NY Y Y • 1999 10 Verizon Communications New York, NY Y Y • 2001 11 Philip Morris New York, NY Y Y • 2001 12 J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. New York, NY Y Y • 2001 13 Bank of America Corp. Charlotte, NC Y Y • 1998 14 SBC Communications Inc. San Antonio, TX Y Y • 2001 15 The Boeing Co. Seattle, WA Y Y • 2001 16 Texaco White Plains, NY Y 18 Kroger Cincinnati, OH Y 19 Hewlett-Packard Palo Alto, CA Y Y • 1997 20 Chevron Corp. San Francisco, CA Y Y • 1997 21 State Farm Group Bloomington, IL Y 22 American International Group New York, NY Y 23 Home Depot Atlanta, GA Y 24 Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. New York, NY Y Y • 1999 25 Merrill Lynch & Co. New York, NY Y Y • 1999 26 Fannie Mae Washington, DC Y Y • 1994 27 Compaq Computer Corp. Houston, TX Y Y • 1999 28 Lucent Technologies Murray Hill, NJ Y Y • 1997 29 Sears, Roebuck and Co. Chicago, IL Y 30 Merck & Co. Inc. Whitehouse Station, NJ Y 31 Procter & Gamble Cincinnati, OH Y 1999 32 WorldCom Inc. Clinton, MS Y 33 TIAA-CREF New York, NY Y 34 Motorola Inc. Schaumburg, IL Y Y • 2000 35 McKesson HBOC San Francisco, CA Y Y • 2000 36 Kmart Troy, MI Y 37 Target Corp. Minneapolis, MN Y Y 38 Albertson’s Inc. Boise, ID Y 41 Intel Inc. Santa Clara, CA Y Y 1997 42 Goldman Sachs Investment Banking New York, NY Y Y • 2000 43 J.C. Penney Co. Inc. Plano, TX Y 44 Conoco Houston, TX Y 45 Costco Wholesale Issaquah, WA Y Y • 1998 46 Safeway Oakland, CA Y 47 Metropolitan Life Insurance New York, NY Y 48 Dell Computer Corp. Austin, TX Y Y • 2001 50 Freddie Mac McLean, VA Y Y • 1998 52 United Parcel Service Atlanta, GA Y 53 Pfizer New York, NY Y Y • 2002 56 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. Wilmington, DE Y 57 Delphi Automotive Troy, MI Y Y • 2000 57 Johnson & Johnson New Brunswick, NJ Y 59 The Allstate Corp. Northbrook, IL Y Y • 2001

32 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001

AB C D E FG H 61 International Paper Purchase, NY Y 62 Wells Fargo & Co. San Francisco, CA Y Y • 1998 63 Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Hartford, CT Y Y • 1998 64 United Technologies Corp. Hartford, CT Y WORKPLACE65 Lehman Brothers Holding New York, NY Y Y • 2000 66 BellSouth Telecommunications Atlanta, GA Y Y • 2001 67 Walt Disney Burbank, CA Y Y • 1996 68 ConAgra Inc. Omaha, NE Y 70 Bank One Corp. Chicago, IL Y Y • 2001 71 Honeywell Morristown, NJ Y Y • 73 First Union Corp. Charlotte, NC Y Y • 2001 74 American Express Co. New York, NY Y Y • 1997 75 Sprint Communications Westwood, KS Y 78 Dow Chemical Co. Midland, MI Y 79 Microsoft Corp. Redmond, WA Y Y • 1993 80 Prudential Newark, NJ Y Y • 2000 81 FleetBoston Financial Boston, MA Y Y • 1999 82 PG & E Corp. San Francisco, CA Y Y • 1996 87 New York Life Insurance New York, NY Y 88 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. New York, NY Y Y • 1998 90 Walgreens Deerfield, IL Y 91 UnitedHealth Group Minnetonka, MN Y 92 Loews Corp. New York, NY Y 93 The Coca-Cola Co. Atlanta, GA Y Y • 2001 95 Tech Data Corp. Clearwater, FL Y Y • 1998 96 Sara Lee Corp. Chicago, IL Y Y 97 Supervalu Eden Prairie, MN Y 98 AMR/American Airlines Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, TX Y Y •2000 100 CVS Woonsocket, RI Y Y 101 Viacom Inc. New York, NY Y Y • 1993 102 Cigna Corp. & Co. Philadelphia, PA Y Y 2001 103 Bergen Brunswig Orange, CA Y Y • 2000 104 UAL/United Airlines Inc. Elk Grove, IL Y Y • 2000 106 Electronic Data Systems Corp. Plano, TX Y Y 1998 107 Cisco Systems San Jose, CA Y Y • 108 Lowe’s Wilkesboro, NC Y 109 Xerox Corp. Stamford, CT Y Y • 1998 110 Federated Department Stores Cincinnati, OH Y Y 1998 111 Raytheon Lexington, MA Y 113 Pharmacia Corp. Peapack, NJ Y Y 1997 114 TRW Cleveland, OH Y Y • 2001 115 Johnson Controls Milwaukee, WI Y 116 Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Milwaukee, WI Y 118 Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) St. Paul, MN Y 120 Qwest Communications International Inc. Englewood, CO Y Y • 2000 122 Weyerhaeuser Federal Way, WA Y 123 Delta Airlines Inc. Atlanta, GA Y Y • 2001 124 Washington Mutual Savings Bank Seattle, WA Y Y 125 Sun Microsystems Palo Alto, CA Y Y • 1993 127 Nationwide Insurance Enterprise Columbus, OH Y Y • 2000 129 Hartford Financial Services Co. Hartford, CT Y Y • 1997 130 Rite Aid Corp. Camp Hill, PA Y 131 Valero Energy Corp. San Antonio, TX Y 133 Occidental Petroleum Los Angeles, CA Y 134 The May Department Stores Co. St. Louis, MO Y 138 McDonald’s Corp. Oakbrook, IL Y 2002 139 Solectron Inc. Milpitas, CA Y 141 Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY Y Y • 1997 142 Kimberly-Clark Dallas, TX Y 143 American Home Products Corp. Madison, NJ Y 144 Abbott Laboratories Abbot Park, IL Y 147 Gap Inc. San Francisco, CA Y Y • 1995

33 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

AB C D E FG H 150 Textron Providence, RI Y 151 Arrow Electronics Melville, NY Y 152 Archer Daniels Midland Co. Decatur, IL Y 154 Sunoco Inc. Philadelphia, PA Y 155 Circuit City Group Richmond, VA Y 158 Amerada Hess New York, NY Y 159 Anheuser-Busch St. Louis, MO Y 161 Household International Inc. Prospect Heights, IL Y 162 Union Pacific Omaha, NE Y 163 Texas Instruments Inc. Dallas, TX Y Y • 2000 164 Edison International Rosemead, CA Y Y • 1998 165 AmeriSource Health Corp. Malvern, PA Y 167 Office Depot Delray Beach, FL Y 169 Pacificare Health Systems Santa Ana, CA Y Y • 170 Northwest Airlines St. Paul, MN Y Y • 2001 171 Tenet Healthcare Santa Barbara, CA Y 172 Toys R Us Framingham, MA Y 173 MassMutual Life Insurance Springfield, MA Y Y • 1997 174 American General Corp. Houston, TX Y 175 Fluor Irvine, CA Y 178 Staples Inc. Westborough, MA Y 179 Humana Inc. Louisville, KY Y 180 General Dynamics Corp. Falls Church, VA Y 181 Whirlpool Corp. Benton Harbor, MI Y 182 Bear Stearns New York, NY Y Y • 2001 183 Marsh & McLennan New York, NY Y Y • 2000 184 Oracle Corp. Redwood Shores, CA Y Y 1993 185 The Limited Inc. Columbus, OH Y Y 186 Marriott International Bethesda, MD Y Y • 1999 187 Entergy Corp. New Orleans, LA Y 188 The Gillette Co. Boston, MA Y Y • 2001 189 Illinois Tool Works Glenview, IL Y 190 US Bancorp Minneapolis, MN Y Y 2000 191 Continental Airlines Houston, TX Y Y • 2000 192 Schering-Plough Corp. Madison, NJ Y 193 AFLAC Inc. Columbus, GA Y 194 Gateway Inc. North Sioux City, SD Y Y 195 TJX Framingham, MA Y 196 Applied Materials Santa Clara, CA Y Y • 197 Consolidated Edison Co. New York, NY Y Y 198 Unumprovident Inc. Portland, ME Y 199 H. J. Heinz Co. Pittsburgh, PA Y 201 Colgate-Palmolive New York, NY Y 202 US Airways Group Arlington, VA Y Y • 2001 208 Avnet Inc. Great Neck, NY Y Y • 2000 209 Health Net Rancho Cordova, CA Y Y • 1998 211 CMS Energy Services Dearborn, MI Y 212 Nike Inc. Beaverton, OR Y Y • 1994 215 Principal Financial Group Des Moines, IA Y Y • 1993 216 EMC Corp. Hopkinton, MA Y Y • 218 Dillard’s Inc. Little Rock, AR Y 219 Anthem Insurance Indianapolis, IN Y Y • 1999 220 PPG Industries Pittsburgh, PA Y 221 SunTrust Banks Inc. Atlanta, GA Y 222 St. Paul Companies St. Paul, MN Y Y • 1995 224 United Services Automobile Association San Antonio, TX Y 226 KeyCorp Cleveland, OH Y Y 227 Navistar International Chicago, IL Y 228 CINergy Cincinnati, OH Y 229 Genuine Parts Co. Atlanta, GA Y 230 SCI Systems Inc. Huntsville, AL Y 232 Northrop Grumman Corp. Los Angeles, CA Y

34 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE 2001

AB C D E FG H 235 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Winston-Salem, NC Y 236 Apple Computer Cupertino, CA Y Y • 1993 240 MBNA Corp. Wilmington, DE Y 241 Boise Cascade Corp. Boise, ID Y 244 John Hancock Financial Services Boston, MA Y Y • 1998 245 Exelon Chicago, IL Y 246 Bank of New York Co. New York, NY Y 247 Aon Corp. Chicago, IL Y 250 Crown Cork & Seal Philadelphia, PA Y 251 Wachovia Corp. Winston-Salem, NC Y Y 2001 252 Corning Inc. Corning, NY Y 254 Chubb Corp. Warren, NJ Y Y 1996 256 Rockwell International Corp. Seal Beach, CA Y 258 Baxter International Deerfield, IL Y 259 Sempra Energy San Diego, CA Y Y • 1996 260 Charles Schwab & Co. San Francisco, CA Y Y 1993 262 Safeco Seattle, WA Y Y • 1999 263 TRICON Global Restaurants Inc. Louisville, KY Y 264 FPL Group Inc. Juno Beach, FL Y 268 Firstar Corp. Milwaukee, WI Y 269 Kellogg Battle Creek, MI Y 270 Newell Rubbermaid Inc. Freeport, IL Y 271 AOL Time Warner Inc. New York, NY Y Y • 2001 272 Unisys Blue Bell, PA Y Y • 1999 273 Rohm & Haas Philadelphia, PA Y 274 Lincoln National Fort Wayne, IN Y Y 1997 275 Public Service Enterprise Group Newark, NJ Y 277 The Progressive Corp. Mayfield Village, OH Y Y 2001 278 General Mills Minneapolis, MN Y Y 2000 282 Cummins Engine Co. Inc. Columbus, IN Y Y • 2000 284 Union Carbide Corp. Danbury, CT Y 285 Seagate Technology Inc. Scotts Valley, CA Y Y • 1998 286 Automatic Data Processing Inc. Roseland, NJ Y 287 Campbell Soup Co. Camden, NJ Y 288 Gannett Co. Inc. Arlington, VA Y 292 Omnicom Group New York, NY Y Y • 295 Computer Associates International Islandia, NY Y Y • 296 Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) San Diego, CA Y Y • 2000 299 Mellon Financial Corp. Pittsburgh, PA Y Y 2001 300 ServiceMaster Downers Grove, IL Y 301 NCR Corp. Dayton, OH Y Y • 1998 303 Providian Financial Corp. San Francisco, CA Y Y 305 Northeast Utilities Berlin, CT Y 307 R.R. Donnelley & Sons Chicago, IL Y 309 VF Corp. Greensboro, NC Y 310 Avon Products New York, NY Y Y • 1998 311 Nextel Communications Reston, VA Y Y • 1999 313 First Data Corp. Atlanta, GA Y 316 Southwest Airlines Dallas, TX Y Y • 2001 319 Mattel Inc. El Segundo, CA Y Y • 1998 320 Litton Industries Inc. Woodland Hills, CA Y 322 Goodrich Corp. Charlotte, NC Y 323 Nordstrom Seattle, WA Y Y • 324 Air Products & Chemicals Inc. Allentown, PA Y 326 IKON Office Solutions Malvern, PA Y Y • 1998 327 Capital One Financial Corp. Falls Church, VA Y Y • 1998 329 3Com Corp. Santa Clara, CA Y 333 Ryder System Inc. Miami, FL Y Y • 1999 334 Eastman Chemical Co. Kingsport, TN Y 342 Keyspan Brooklyn, NY Y 344 Tribune Co. Chicago, IL Y Y • 2001 347 Quaker Oats Co. Chicago, IL Y

35 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

AB C D E FG H 349 Medtronic Inc. Minneapolis, MN Y Y • 2000 350 W.W. Grainger Skokie, IL Y 353 B J’s Wholesale Club Natick, MA Y 360 Radioshack Fort Worth, TX Y 362 Dole Food Co. Inc. Westlake Village, CA Y 364 Quantum Milpitas, CA Y 366 Venator New York, NY Y 367 Cendant Corp. New York, NY Y Y • 1999 369 Advanced Micro Devices Sunnyvale, CA Y Y 1994 374 The Black & Decker Corp. Towson, MD Y 375 Dollar General Corp. Goodlettsville, TN Y 377 Niagara Mohawk Power Syracuse, NY Y 379 Pitney Bowes Stamford, CT Y Y • 2001 380 Brunswick Corp. Lake Forest, IL Y 385 Cablevision Systems Corp. Bethpage, NY Y Y 2001 386 Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide White Plains, NY Y Y • 1999 389 Estee Lauder Companies New York, NY Y Y • 1998 391 McGraw-Hill New York, NY Y Y • 1998 395 Maytag Corp. North Newton, IA Y 396 Avis Group Holdings Inc. Garden City, NY Y Y 398 Hershey Foods Corp. Hershey, PA Y 399 Bethlehem Steel Bethlehem, PA Y 406 Progress Energy Raleigh, NC Y 410 Barnes & Noble New York, NY Y Y 1995 411 Comerica Inc. Detroit, MI Y Y • 2001 412 Clorox Co. Oakland, CA Y Y 1999 415 Longs Drug Stores Corp. Walnut Creek, CA Y 416 Nash Finch Minneapolis, MN Y 419 Merisel El Segundo, CA Y 421 Golden West Financial Corp. Oakland, CA Y 424 KB Home Los Angeles, CA Y 425 FMC Corp. Chicago, IL Y 428 Avery Dennison Pasadena, CA Y 429 York International York, PA Y 430 Thermo Electron Corp. Waltham, MA Y 432 Constellation Energy Baltimore, MD Y 433 Comdisco Rosemont, IL Y 437 Lexmark International Inc. Lexington, KY Y 438 Hasbro Inc. Pawtucket, RI Y 442 Pathmark Stores Inc. Woodbridge, NJ Y Y 1995 446 Westvaco New York, NY Y 448 Administaff Kingwood, TX Y 2000 449 Darden Restaurants Orlando, FL Y Y • 2001 450 Pinnacle West Capital Phoenix, AZ Y 451 MicroAge Tempe, AZ Y 452 Hormel Foods Austin, MN Y 455 Amgen Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA Y Y • 1999 456 Becton Dickinson Franklin Lakes, NJ Y 461 Tenneco Inc. Greenwich, CT Y 463 Trans World Airlines St. Louis, MO Y 466 Cox Communications Inc. Atlanta, GA Y 468 New York Times Co. New York, NY Y Y • 472 Hilton Hotels Beverly Hills, CA Y Y 2001 475 Quest Diagnostics Teterboro, NJ Y Y • 2000 485 Borders Group Inc. Ann Arbor, MI Y Y 486 ADC Telecommunications Inc. Minnetonka, MN Y 488 Consolidated Stores Corp. Columbus, OH Y 490 Armstrong World Industries Lancaster, PA Y 494 Summit Bancorp Princeton, NJ Y 499 Knight-Ridder Newspapers Inc. San Jose, CA Y Y • 1997 500 QualComm San Diego, CA Y Y • 1997

36 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001

APPENDIX 2 WORKPLACEBusinesses That Support Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Major Corporations Small Businesses

AT&T, New York, NY America’s Second Harvest, Chicago, IL Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Ice Cream, South Burlington, VT Ansafone.com/Ephonamation.com, Santa Ana, CA Borland International, Scotts Valley, CA Atlanta Computer Group, Alpharetta, GA Digi-Net Syndication, Tampa, FL Billingsley Co., Dallas, TX Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY Bridge Capital, Irvine, CA FleetBoston Financial Corp., Boston, MA Corey & Co., Watertown, MA Franklin Research, Boston, MA Crow Design Centers, Dallas, TX General Mills, Minneapolis, MN Donato’s Pizza, Boston, MA Hewlett-Packard Co., Palo Alto, CA Employon, Cleveland, OH Hill and Knowlton, New York, NY Far West Management, Santa Ana, CA Honeywell, Moristown, NJ The Feed Bag Restaurants, Dallas, TX Imation, Oakdale, MN Greater Boston Food Bank, Boston, MA Louis Dreyfus Corp., Wilton, CT Homewood Suite Hotels, Lewisville, TX Merrill Lynch, New York, NY I Love Flowers, Dallas, TX MFS Investment Management, Boston, MA James Daniels & Associates, Fort Worth, TX Microsoft, Redmond, WA Linkage Inc., Lexington, MA Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA MassEnvelopePlus, Sommerville, MA Pacific Telesis, San Francisco, CA Memorial Family Medicine Medical Group Inc., Long Beach, CA Prudential Insurance Co., Newark, NJ Microtek Inc., Chicopee, MA Quark, Denver, CO Morrisey Associates Inc., Chicago, IL State Street Corp., Boston, MA Nims Associates Inc., Dallas, TX The Quaker Oats Company, Chicago, IL Odell & Associates, Dallas, TX Triarc Beverage Group, White Plains, NY Phil’s CookShop LLC, Lexington, KY Wainwright Bank, Boston, MA Rafanelli Events Management Inc., Boston, MA Xerox, Stamford, CT Replacements Ltd., Greensboro, NC Resource One, Columbus, OH Riverview Center for Orthopedic Rehabilitation, Columbus, OH Saddleback Interiors, Corona Del Mar, CA Southern Enterprises Inc., Dallas, TX Triton Funding Group, San Francisco, CA Voice Publishing Co. Inc., Dallas, TX WheelHouse Corp., Burlington, MA Winninghabits.com, Dallas, TX Witeck-Combs Communications, Washington, DC Wyndham Jade, Dallas, TX

37 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

ENDNOTES

1. Badgett, Lee, “Calculating Costs with Credibility: Health 9. “Gays in GOP Praise Bush for Inclusive Tone; AIDS Care Benefits for Domestic Partners,” Institute for Gay Policy Office Appointment Only Goes so Far, Democrats and Lesbian Strategic Studies Angles, Vol 5. No. 1, Say,” The Baltimore Sun, April 22, 2001. November 2000. Also, a 1999 survey of human resources professionals found that domestic partner benefits were 10. Polls noted: June 20, 1977, Gallup Organization, Should the No. 1 most effective recruiting tool for executives and 56%, Should not 33%; June 28, 1982, Gallup the No. 3 most effective recruiting tool for managers and Organization, Should 59%, Should not 28%; July 21, line workers. “1999 Society for Human Resource 1983, Gallup Organization, Should 65%, Should not Management/Commerce Clearing House Recruiting 25%; Oct. 15, 1989, Gallup Organization, Should 71%, Practices Survey,” Human Resources Management: Ideas & Should not 18%; June 8, 1992, Gallup Organization, Trends, Chicago, No. 460, June 16, 1999. Should 74%, Should not 18%; Jan. 14, 1993, CBS 2. Zbar, Jeffrey D., “Dealing with the Labor Squeeze,” Credit News/The New York Times, Should 79%, Should not 16%; Card Management, New York, November 1998. Feb. 4, 1994, Princeton Survey Research Associates, Should 74%, Should not 19%; Feb. 24, 1996, CBS 3. “Gay and Lesbian Consumers Trust Brands Most From News/The New York Times, Should 83%, Should not 12%; Companies With Progressive Policies.” Harris Interactive/ April 10, 1997, Tarrance Group and Lake Sosin Snell and Witeck-Combs Communications, Washington, D.C., Associates, Should 80%, Should not 14%; February 1999, June 11, 2001. Gallup Organization, Should 83%, Should not 13%.

4. “More Gay and Lesbian Consumers than Non-Gays Prefer 11. As stated previously, Maryland’s law is in dispute. Financial Institutions Offering Online Services,” Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combs Communications, Washing- 12. Ibid. ton, D.C., April 25, 2001. 13. “Md. Gay Rights Activists Challenge Petition,” The 5. On May 15, 2001, Maryland Democratic Gov. Parris Washington Post, July 31, 2001. Glendening signed a bill banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing and 14. This is similar to the number of states and counties that public accommodations. But in early July, a conservative enacted domestic partner benefits last year. The 2000 coalition gathered signatures to force a referendum on the “State of the Workplace Report” found that two states — law in November 2002, thereby suspending its enact- Connecticut and Washington — and 12 cities or coun- ment. A lawsuit has since been filed, however, that chal- ties added the benefits. lenginges the validity of the petition signatures and throws the referendum into doubt. 15. “Domestic Partner Health Coverage OK’d,” Portland Press Herald, May 24, 2001. 6. Correspondence with Mary Bonauto, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and co-counsel, Baker v. Vermont, 16. “State Supreme Court Upholds Vancouver Domestic Aug. 22, 2001. Partner Benefits,” The Associated Press, Aug. 24, 2001.

7. “National study reveals many people wrongly believe that 17. “Vilsack Bias Ban Shakes Up GOP,” Des Moines Register, federal laws already exist,” Harris Interactive/Witeck March 30, 2001. Combs Communications, Rochester, N.Y., June 13, 2001. 18. S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 2001 WL 664233 (9th Cir 2001). 8. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, 19. Air Transport Association of America v. City and County religion, sex or national origin. The Age Discrimination of San Francisco, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8747 (N.D. in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits employment dis- Cal. 1999). crimination on the basis of age. And the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits employment discrimi- nation on the basis of disability. 38 THE STATE OF THE WORKPLACE WORKPLACEFOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS 2001 20. “The 2001 Fortune 500,” Fortune Magazine, April 16, 32. “The State of the Workplace for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual 2001. and Transgendered Americans 2000,” op cit.

21. While many employers offer benefits beyond health 33. The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria insurance (and some offer only “soft” benefits, such as Association first published its “Standards of Care For bereavement leave), medical coverage is the minimum Gender Identity Disorders” in 1979. The group is a pro- requirement for inclusion in the HRC WorkNet employ- fessional organization devoted to the understanding and er database. (For a complete list of these employers, visit treatment of gender identity disorders and has approxi- the HRC WorkNet website at www.hrc.org/worknet). mately 350 members representing the fields of psychiatry, endocrinology, surgery, law, psychology, sociology, and 22. Table does not include data provided by the cities of San counseling. The standards dictate the organization’s pro- Francisco, Los Angeles or Seattle because they don’t track fessional consensus about the psychiatric, psychological, market sectors. medical, and surgical management of gender identity dis- orders. For more information, see www.hbigda.org. 23. “The State of the Workplace for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Workers” 2000 and 1999 editions, 34. Data compiled with the assistance of Mary Ann Horton, Human Rights Campaign Foundation. chair of Transgender At Work. For more information, visit www.tgender.net/taw. 24. “Domestic Partner Benefits 2000,” Hewitt Associates, Lincolnshire, Ill., Nov. 28, 2000. 35. “Sex-Change Benefits May Spread Beyond San Francisco,” The Associated Press, May 7, 2001. 25. “SHRM 2001 Benefits Survey,” Society for Human Resource Management, Alexandria, Va., April 2001. 36. Ibid.

26. “ORC Survey of Domestic Partner Benefits,” Opinion 37. The SEC has excluded resolutions calling for domestic Research Corp., Skillman, N.J., Aug. 15, 2000. partner benefits, ruling that they can be denied as ordinary business. It’s also important to note that such resolutions 27. These figures have changed slightly since HRC WorkNet are advisory only and not binding on the corporation. began publishing “State of the Workplace” reports. In 1990, 69 percent offered benefits to both same and oppo- 38. 132 F.Supp.2d 528 (W.D.Ky. 2001). site-sex couples; in 2000, 65 percent did. These numbers also compare favorably with the Hewitt Associates report, 39. 121 S.Ct. 1302 (2001). which found that 64 percent of employers offered bene- fits to both same- and opposite-sex partners. 40. 142 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Ct. Mass. 2001).

28. This chart shows only those employers where benefits eli- 41. 483 F.3d 33 (2nd Cir. 2000). gibility is known. It does not include data on employers provided to HRC by the cities of San Francisco, Seattle or 42. Holman v. Indiana, 211 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 1999). Los Angeles. 43. Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children Inc., (U.S. 29. Date has been estimated for 23 companies where date of Dist. 2001). implementation was not available. 44. Correspondence with Karen Loewy, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Sept. 6, 2001. 30. “Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Benefits,” The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and 45. In 2000, gay and lesbian families totaled 601,209, of Educational Trust, 1999. which 304,148 were gay male families and 297,061 were lesbian families, according to an analysis conducted by 31. Table does not include data provided by the cities of San the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and Urban Francisco, Los Angeles or Seattle. Institute in August 2001.

39 HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Daryl Herrschaft, HRC’s WorkNet manager, advises corporations, state and local governments and individuals on the standards of a fair and equitable workplace for GLBT employees. He has researched and written about GLBT workplace issues including homophobia in the workplace and domestic partner benefits and has conducted numerous workshops on these issues for diverse audiences. Herrschaft oversees the WorkNet website and database of employers with non-discrimination policies and domestic partner benefits.

Kim I. Mills, director of HRC’s education department, oversees HRC WorkNet, among other projects. She speaks frequent- ly about GLBT workplace issues and has written on the subject for publications including Harvard Business Review, The Dallas Morning News, ACA Journal and The Diversity Factor. Before joining HRC in 1996, Mills spent 14 years as a reporter and editor with The Associated Press.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS HRC WorkNet thanks Sharon Debbage Alexander, HRC staff counsel and HRC Law Fellows Luke Platzer, Christine Lamble and Alyssa Lareau for the legal research in this publication. Thanks also to Alice Budisatrijo, HRC WorkNet assistant, for her meticulous attention to the WorkNet database.

40