CORPORATEEQUALITY INDEXOn Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Social Responsibility

2004

HRC SENIOR STAFF

Cheryl A. JacquesPresident

Harvey Hurdle

Chief Operating Officer

Jacquelyn J. Bennett
Director of Executive Affairs

Steven Fisher

Communications Director

Andrea Green
Finance Director

Julian High

Human Resources & Diversity Director

Seth Kilbourn

National Field Director

Kevin Layton

General Counsel & Legal Director

Kim I. Mills

Education Director

Cathy Nelson

Development Director

Christopher Speron

Deputy Director of Development

Winnie Stachelberg
Political Director

HRC FOUNDATION BOARD

Gwen Baba
Vic Basile
Terry Bean
Edith Cofrin
Lawrie Demorest
Mary Jo Hudson
Harry Jackson
Marty Lieberman
Candy Marcum
Worth Ross
Andrea Sharrin
Gary Teixiera

As America’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organization, the Human Rights
Campaign provides a national voice on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression
issues. HRC effectively lobbies Congress; mobilizes grassroots action in diverse communities;
invests strategically to elect a fair-minded Congress; and increases public understanding throughinnovative education and communication strategies. HRC is a nonpartisan organization that works
to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity, to ensure thatgay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work
and in the community.
HRC WORKNETThe Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s workplace project, HRC WorkNet, is a national sourceof information on laws and policies surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression in the workplace. HRC WorkNet advises employees and employers on the value of workplace
diversity. It collects, analyzes and disseminates information to assist employees and employers in
implementing policies and procedures aimed at treating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender workers equally. For more information, visit the HRC WorkNet website at www.hrc.org/worknet, or contact HRC WorkNet at 202/216-1552 or via e-mail at hrcworknet@hrc.org.

Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 1640 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
phone 202/628-4160 TTY 202/216-1572 fax 202/347-5323 website www.hrc.org© 2004 by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. The HRC Foundation grants permission for
the reproduction and redistribution of this publication only when reproduced in its entirety and distributed free of charge. The Human Rights Campaign name and the Equality logo are trademarks of
the Human Rights Campaign.

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Section 1: The 2004 Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Section 2: Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Section 3: Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Section 4: Other Best and Worst Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Section 5: Raising the Bar: The 2006 Corporate Equality Index . . . . . .16
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Appendix 1: The 2004 Corporate Equality Index Survey . . . . . . . . . . .20
Appendix 2: The Equality Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Appendix 3: 2004 Corporate Equality Index Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Appendix 4: List of anti-GLBT organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
About the Author/Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

1

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

INTRODUCTION
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation
launched the Corporate Equality Index in 2002
as a way to evaluate how major U.S. corporations
treat their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
employees, consumers and investors. In three
years, the index has become the standard bywhich companies are measured, and by which
they measure themselves, in regard to GLBT
diversity and inclusion.
Companies are using the index the way the
Human Rights Campaign had intended: as a roadmap to equal treatment for GLBT Americans in
the workplace and marketplace. The index has
also had a profound impact on many workplaces
and has spurred significant change among companies that initially had been slow to adopt more
equitable policies. As this year’s report shows,
hundreds of companies have responded by
improving their policies and raising their scores.
One unintended consequence of the Corporate
Equality Index is that high performers began asking the Human Rights Campaign almost immediately to add criteria to the index to help guidetheir continuous improvement, thus making it
more difficult to score 100 percent. In response,
HRC staff began crafting a more rigorous survey
instrument to capture more information about
leading-edge policies. And in this report, weannounce additions to the index that will takeeffect in 2006. It is our goal to make the new criteria challenging but achievable, and to give companies enough notice of the changes to maintainor improve their scores.

2

METHODOLOGYFor each of the last three years, the Human Rights
Campaign Foundation has surveyed that year’s
Fortune 500 companies, companies on Forbes’ listof the 200 largest privately held firms and anyother company with 500 or more employees thatrequested a rating or for which HRC had sufficient data to derive a score. The 2004 survey was
mailed in February to the chief executive officer,
the head of human resources and any other contacts who requested it. In May, HRC telephoned
companies that had not responded to the survey
by April 30. Once preliminary scores were tabulated, letters were sent in July to all the companies
informing them of their score and asking them toprovide HRC with any additional information or
updates. (See Appendix 1 for the complete survey.)
A total of 791 companies were surveyed in 2004.
A total of 157 companies returned surveys, for a
response rate of 20 percent. (The response rate was
17 percent in 2003 and 13 percent in 2002.) In
the end, 379 companies were rated. Of those rated
companies, 65 percent have responded to HRC’s
survey in at least one of the past three years.
The HRC Foundation did not rely solely on selfreporting to rate companies. The HRC
Foundation employed a team of researchers toinvestigate and cross-check corporate policies andpractices. They scrutinized filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission to trackconnections between companies’ significant shareholders and any anti-gay organizations or activities. They also reviewed IRS 990 forms for foundation gifts to anti-gay groups. Staff also searchedcase law and news accounts to ascertain whether
allegations of discrimination on the basis of

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

sexual orientation and/or gender identity or
expression had been brought against any ofthese corporations.
These data were supplemented by HRC
WorkNet, which since 1995 has collected information on U.S. employers and maintains themost accurate and extensive database of policies
regarding the GLBT community. Finally, data
were included from the former glvIndex andglvReports.com, which conducted similar annual
surveys of the same set of corporations from 1993
until HRC acquired that index in 2001. News
accounts, employee resource groups and individuals provided another level of data in determining
corporate policies. Companies are not rated until
all appropriate information has been gatheredand verified. All averages expressed in this report
are medians.
HRC WorkNet was aided in the development of
the survey instrument and the index criteria by
the HRC Business Council, an advisory groupcomposed primarily of GLBT executives in a variety of disciplines from major U.S. corporations.
The group provides substantial expertise andexperience in corporate policy and decision-making to help ensure that the index is rigorous andfair. The HRC Business Council was not involvedin administering the survey, tabulating the data or
calculating any scores. (See Acknowledgements fora list of Business Council members.)

The Corporate Equality Index is a broad measureof corporate policies and practices toward the
GLBT community, and each company’s rating
should be viewed as a composite of its activity
over the last several years. While some components of the index, such as non-discrimination
policies, do not typically change from year to year,
other performance indicators do, such as a company’s advertising and event sponsorship. Even
after scrupulous data collection and careful consideration, assigning a grade to measure how fairly
a corporation that may employ tens of thousandsof people treats GLBT individuals involves somedegree of subjectivity. In the end, HRC realizes
that a company’s Corporate Equality Index score
cannot convey the nuances of its performance onthese issues. For more detailed explanations ofcorporate practices, readers should consult HRC
WorkNet (www.hrc.org/worknet).
The goal of the Human Rights Campaign
Foundation’s WorkNet project is to assist all companies in improving the policies and climate for
GLBT employees. To those ends, HRC offers
continually updated resources for employers oneach of the criteria covered by this index. HRC
encourages companies interested in participatingin the Corporate Equality Index to contact HRC
WorkNet at hrcworknet@hrc.org.

3

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

SECTION 1: THE 2004 CRITERIAThe Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s
Corporate Equality Index is a simple and effective
tool to rate large American businesses on how
they are treating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors.
The criteria for 2004 are the same as in 2003.
Companies were rated on a scale of 0 percent to
100 percent based on whether they:
1. Include the words “sexual orientation” in theirprimary written non-discrimination policy.
2. Include the words “gender identity” or “gender
identity and/or expression” in their primary written non-discrimination policy.
3. Offer health insurance coverage to employees’
same-sex domestic partners firm-wide; or provide
cash compensation to employees to purchasehealth insurance for a domestic partner on
their own.
4. Officially recognize and support a gay,lesbian, bisexual and transgender employee
resource group; or would support employees’
forming a GLBT employee resource group if
some expressed interest by providing space andother resources; or have a firm-wide diversity
council or working group whose mission
specifically includes GLBT diversity.
5. Offer diversity training that includes sexual
orientation and/or gender identity and expression
in the workplace.

4

6. Engage in respectful and appropriate marketing to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendercommunity and/or provide support through theircorporate foundation or otherwise to GLBT
health, educational, political or community
organizations or events.
7. Engage in corporate action that would undermine the goal of equal rights for gay, lesbian,bisexual and transgender people.1
Each of the seven factors was given equal weightin calculating the score. Half-credit was given for
criterion No. 4 if a company had neither a GLBT
employee resource group nor a fully inclusive
diversity council but would allow a GLBT
resource group access to facilities, should one
arise. All companies receive credit for the last
criterion unless the HRC Foundation has foundevidence that they have engaged in action thatwould undermine the goal of equal rights for
GLBT people.
The index is guided in part by the Equality
Principles, 10 benchmarks for companies seeking
to demonstrate a commitment to equal treatmentof GLBT employees, consumers and investors.
The Equality Principles were developed in 1992
by the Equality Project, a New York-based groupthat monitors corporate policies and practices surrounding sexual orientation and gender identityand expression. (See Appendix 2 for the full
Equality Principles.)CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

SECTION 2:FINDINGS
A total of 56 companies received a score of 100
percent on the 2004 Corporate Equality Index,
twice as many as in 2003 and more than four times
the number of perfect scores than in 2002, the firstyear the index was released. There were 28

companies with perfect scores in 2003 and 13 in
2002. (One of those companies, Bank One Corp.,
was acquired July 1, 2004, by J.P. Morgan Chase &Co.) No company that received 100 percent in2002 or 2003 has seen its score decrease.

Companies With 100 Percent in 2004
FortuneRank Company
108
305
110
69
301
40
401
n/a
78
452
200
n/a
402
n/a
174
100
8
430
31
n/a
149
n/a
4
74
11
9
53
26

Aetna Inc.**
Agilent Technologies Inc.*
American Airlines (AMR Corp.)**American Express Co.*Apple Computer Inc.**
AT&T Corp.*
Avaya Inc.**
Bausch & Lomb Inc.
Best Buy Co. Inc.*
Borders Group Inc.*
Capital One Financial Corp.
Cargill Inc.
The Charles Schwab Corp.*
ChoicePoint Inc.
Chubb Corp.*
Cisco Systems Inc.*
Citigroup Inc.*
Coors Brewing Co.*
Dell Inc.*
Deutsche Bank
Eastman Kodak Co.**
Faegre & Benson*
Ford Motor Co.*The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.*
Hewlett-Packard Co.
IBM Corp.
Intel Corp.**
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.***Achieved 100 percent for the first time in 2004.
**Has scored 100 percent all three years the index has existed
n/a means “not applicable”

FortuneRank Company
274
n/a
n/a
113
422
243
36
n/a
n/a
n/a
61
118
322
499
184
350
62
25
179
57
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
49
161
n/a
130

Keyspan*
Kimpton Hotels & Restaurant Group Inc.*
Kraft Foods Inc.*
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Levi Strauss & Co.
Lucent Technologies Inc.**
MetLife Inc.
Miller Brewing Co.*
Mitchell Gold Co.
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Motorola Inc.*
Nationwide*
NCR Corp.**
New York Times Co.*
Nike Inc.**
Owens Corning*
PepsiCo Inc.*
Pfizer Inc.*
PG&E Corp.
Prudential Financial Inc.
Replacements Ltd.**
SC Johnson & Son Inc.
Southern California Edison Co.*UBS Financial Services Inc.*
Wells Fargo & Co.*
Whirlpool Corp.*
Worldspan Technologies Inc.**
Xerox Corp.**5

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Of the 28 companies that scored 100 percent for
the first time in 2004, 19 raised the scores from86 percent by adding gender identity or expression to their non-discrimination statements; previously, they had met all the other criteria.
A total of 124 companies received a score of 86
percent, the most common score on the index. All
but one of these companies fell short of a perfectscore only because they failed to include “gender
identity and/or expression” in their primary nondiscrimination statement.
Number of Companies Receiving Each Score
Rating

100
93
86
79
71
64
57
50
43
36
29
14
0

No. of Companies

56
1
124
11
60
5
43
5
37
1
28
7
1

One company — ALLTEL Corp. — received ascore of 0 percent. The company failed to take any
affirmative positions on the treatment of GLBT
employees and consumers and actively opposed ashareholder resolution to include sexual orientationin its non-discrimination policy. This company
stands in stark contrast to its top competitors
BellSouth Corp., SBC Communications Inc.
and Verizon Communications Inc., all of whichscored 86 percent.

6

The next lowest score on the index was 14 percent.
Seven companies received a score of 14 percent:
BB&T Corp.
Exxon Mobil Corp.
International Steel Group
Meijer Inc.
New NGC Inc. (doing business as
National Gypsum Co.)
Perot Systems Corp.
Shaw Industries Inc. (a subsidiary ofBerkshire Hathaway Inc.)
With the exception of ExxonMobil and Perot
Systems, these companies received an automaticscore of 14 points on the last criterion of theindex because HRC was unable to find any evidence that they had overtly resisted equal treatment of GLBT people. However, these employers
have not taken any affirmative steps for GLBT
employees, consumers or investors.
The seventh criterion of the index evaluates corporate actions that may undermine the goal ofequal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. In 2004, eight companies —including ExxonMobil and Perot Systems — lost
points on this measure.

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

RESISTING SHAREHOLDERRESOLUTIONSIn recent years, shareholder advocates have successfully lobbied more than a dozen major corporations to add sexual orientation to their non-discrimination policies. In many cases, companies
amended their policies without the issue everreaching the company’s shareholders. Three companies rated this year — ALLTEL Corp. (0 percent), Emerson Electric Co. (29 percent) andExxonMobil (14 percent) — opposed shareholder
resolutions that went to a vote. Even after significant votes in favor of the resolutions at their annual shareholder meetings over the past several years,
none of these companies has changed this policy.2
ROLLING BACK POLICIESPerot Systems received 14 percent because while
the company includes sexual orientation in its
non-discrimination policy, it closed its domestic
partner benefits program in 1998 after Ross Perot,
Reform Party presidential candidate in 1992,
returned to the firm’s helm. As a result, Perot
Systems is one of the few information technology
companies that does not offer benefits to employees’ same-sex partners. To the best of HRC’s
knowledge, it was also the first U.S. company to
end eligibility for domestic partner benefits.
ExxonMobil has the distinction of being the second U.S. company known to have rescinded
GLBT-friendly workplace policies. The company
stripped sexual orientation from Mobil’s EEO
policy when the two companies merged in 1999
and closed Mobil’s domestic partner benefits program to any additional employees.
Clear Channel Communications Inc. of San
Antonio, Texas, became the third company identified by HRC that has rescinded domestic partner
benefits. When the company purchased SFX

Entertainment in 2000 and AM/FM radio in
2001, it forced employees into its own benefits
plan that does not offer domestic partner coverage. (HRC could not calculate a Corporate
Equality Index score for this company because it
did not respond to HRC’s survey and HRC was
unable otherwise to find answers for all of theindex’s criteria.)
Entergy Corp., which received a score of 36 percent, also ended eligibility for domestic partner
benefits. In 2001, it acquired two nuclear power
plants run by the New York Power Authority,
which offers domestic partner health benefits. On
Jan. 1, 2003, Entergy notified employees that “aspart of our Northeast benefits alignment …
[Entergy] suspended additional Domestic Partner
participation.”
FUNDING ANTI-GLBT CAUSES
While HRC researches the anti-GLBT activities ofa company’s significant shareholders, it does notaccount for them in a company’s score. However,
HRC does factor in contributions from corporate
foundations. In 2004, HRC uncovered gifts fromthe foundations of three companies — Amgen
Inc. (71 percent), Fannie Mae (71 percent) andMBNA Corp. (43 percent) — to virulently antiGLBT organizations. The Amgen Foundation
donated $18,000 in 2001 and 2002 to James
Dobson’s Focus on the Family. In 2001, the
MBNA Foundation donated $6,250 to the samegroup. Both were general purpose grants.
Meanwhile, in 2001, the Fannie Mae Foundation
provided a $50,000 grant to the Traditional Values
Coalition. The grant was intended to be used “totrain church leaders to provide homeownershipeducation in the Greater Los Angeles area.”

7

0
40

20

92

94

95

2002

2003

2004

0
40

5

8

16

2002

2003

2004

5

8

16

2002

2003

2004

8

6

5

20

CORPORATEEQUALITY
INDEX
2004
92
94
95

0

2002

2003

0

2004

100

100
80

80
The tables below show the percentage of CEI-rated companies
that met each criterion.
100 Sexual Orientation in their
Include30
25
Non-Discrimination
Policies
80
60
100
100
40
8080

8
30

6
25

5
23

70

75

77

2002

2003

2004

20
6060

40400

23

60
100
Support
Employee
Resource
Groups 39
59
47
40
or80Have Diversity Councils
20
60
92
94
95
100
100
0
9559
9247
8539
2002
2003
2004
40
8080

20
6060
40400

2020
0 0
100

9270

94 75

9577

2002
2002

2003
2003

2004
2004

8

6

5

60
100
100
95
40
40
80
80
20
60
60 92
0100
100
20024030
40
40
80
80
20
20
60
60
5
60
00
4040 2002
2002

80
60

92
30

85
26

61

2002

2003

2004

541

8 53

16
61

2002
2002

2003
2003

2004
2004

20
0

40

100 95 Diversity Training
92
85
Provide30
25Including Sexual
23
Orientationor Gender Identity
80

100

60
100

60

40
80

47

30

24

20
94

95

20033025

20042623

8
70

16
74

2003
2003

2004
2004

6070

7075

7477

2002
2002

2003
2003

2004
2004

30

25

23

20
60
5
100
70
0 100
47
59
400 20022002
80
80
20
60
60
53
0
40
2002
40

8

40
20

16

75
20033047

77
20042439

70

76

2003

2004

2003

80

2004

0

20
20

53
76
Advertiseor Contribute70
to GLBT
41
53
61
0
0
2002Organizations
2003 or Events
2004
Community
2002
2003
2004

100
100

59
40

47
30

39
26

100

80

80
80

80

60

60
60

60

40

40
40

40

20

100
0
80

8

00
100

0 0 Domestic Partner Health Benefits
Offer

100

53

40

2020

Include Gender Identity and/or Expression in80
their Non-Discrimination Policies

2020

41

60

70
40
2002

75
30
2003

77
26
2004

60

Percent that have policy or practice.

40

Percent that do not have policy or practice.

20
41
60
47

53
70
30

61
74
24

2002
2002

2003
2003

2004
2004

53

70

76

60
40
20

20
0

20
20
100
00
80

60

70

74

0

0

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Both Focus on the Family and the Traditional
Values Coalition support anti-GLBT legislation at
the federal, state and local levels. In addition,
Focus on the Family maintains a project intended
to convince gays and lesbians that they can andshould change their sexual orientation to become
heterosexual. The psychological, medical and psychiatric establishments agree that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and that so-called “reparative therapy” aimed at altering sexual orientation
does not work and may, in fact, be harmful.

SECTION

3: TRENDS

The Corporate Equality Index has helped spur an
exponential rise in the number of firms that protect employees on the basis of gender identity
and/or expression. In 2002, only 17 companies
measured by the index had such policies. In 2003,
that number rose to 30, and in 2004, it nearly
doubled to 59. This is 347 percent growth in
three years.
Many of the companies that added gender identity and/or expression to their policies did so in
2004 expressly because they wanted to score 100
percent on this index. HRC WorkNet and the
HRC Business Council provided counseling andadvice to many of these companies. Also in 2004,
the HRC Foundation published “Transgender
Issues in the Workplace: A Tool for Managers” inresponse to requests from companies seeking toearn the top score.

In 2004, 51 percent of companies scored in the
top quartile and 81 percent scored in the top
two. In 2002, scores were more evenly distributed
across quartiles, with about one-third of companies in the first three quartiles and a small number scoring below 25 percent. The average score
for the 379 companies rated in 2004 was 79 percent, up from 71 percent in 2003 and 57 percent
in 2002.
Distribution of Index Scores: Percent ofCompanies in Each Quartile, by Year
60
51

50
42

40
35

30

32

30

34
30

21

20

17

10
3

0

1st
Quartile

2nd
Quartile

3rd
Quartile

2002

2003

2004

2

2

4th
Quartile

Rated companies have been steadily improving
their scores in the three years that HRC has
released the Corporate Equality Index. A total of
143 companies out of the 379 companies rated, or
38 percent, have improved their scores since 2002.

9

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Change Over Time In Companies
With Low ScoresCompany Name

2002

2003

2004

Aramark Corp.

n/r

14

86

Cracker Barrel

0

29

29

Domino’s Inc.

14

14

50

Emerson Electric Co.

0

29

29

Exxon Mobil Corp.

14

14

14

FedEx Corp.

14

29

57

Lockheed Martin Corp.

0

71

71

MeadWestvaco Corp.

14

29

29

Meijer Inc.

14

14

14

National Gypsum

n/r

14

14

Perot Systems Corp.

14

14

14

Shaw Industries Inc.

14

14

14

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

14

43

43

n/r=not rated

Average Score for
All Companies Rated
Year

Score

2002
2003
2004

57
71
79

Moreover, companies at the extreme low end of
the index have taken steps to improve their scores.
In 2002 and 2003, a total of 13 companies
received either zero or 14 percent. Eight of thosecompanies have improved their scores since thoseratings, some of them dramatically. In 2004,
Aramark Corp. — the third-largest food serviceprovider in the world, serving food and beverages
in hundreds of sports arenas, concert halls andother entertainment venues — was the mostimproved employer, going from 14 percent in2003 to 86 percent in 2004. In one year, the10company added sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policy, domestic partner benefits,
diversity training and other policies.
In 2003, Lockheed Martin was the mostimproved company, going from 0 percent to 71
percent. The two other companies that scored 0
percent in 2002 also improved their scores.
Still, there are some companies that are stuck at
the low level of the index — ExxonMobil,
Meijer Inc., National Gypsum, Perot Systems
and Shaw Industries. These companies have not
improved their scores above 14 percent.
More than one-third of the rated companies havestayed firmly in the middle, with scores ranging
from 29 percent to 71 percent. Notably, there aresome among them that enjoy strong reputationsin the GLBT community despite their inaction.
These include Ben and Jerry’s Homemade Inc.
(71 percent), a Unilever subsidiary that is known
for its stated commitment to corporate responsibility; Circuit City Stores Inc. (29 percent) is thesecond largest U.S. electronics retailer, operating
more than 600 stores selling computers; entertainment software and consumer electronics andWhole Foods Market Inc. (57 percent), theworld’s top natural foods chain.
PERFORMANCE BY INDUSTRY
In 2004, the Corporate Equality Index rated companies in 32 industries. Eleven industries had an
average score above the index average of 79 percent,while 14 industries were below the index average.
There were nine industries that had multiple companies with a 100 percent rating and 13 that had
no companies at 100 percent. In 10 industries, only
one company achieved 100 percent.

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Several industries stand out with a higher-thanaverage score and multiple companies that
achieved 100 percent. The banking and financial
services sector had the highest number of 100 percent companies — 10 — and an industry averageof 86 percent. Citigroup, Goldman Sachs,
Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brothers Holdings,
Wells Fargo, Charles Schwab, Capital One
Financial, UBS, American Express and J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. all received 100 percent.
Still, the industry has its laggards. Newcomer tothe index, BB&T Corp. (14 percent) has no
GLBT-friendly policies in place.
Similarly, in the computer and office equipment
sector, six companies achieved 100 percent —IBM, Apple Computer, Dell, Xerox, HewlettPackard and NCR Corp. That industry had an
overall average of 86 percent.
In 10 industries, there was only one company
with a score of 100 percent. For example,
American Airlines was the only major passenger
carrier with a perfect score. While all the major
passenger carriers provide some level of healthinsurance coverage for domestic partners, several
have not gone much further. Southwest Airlines,
for instance, scored 43 on the index. It does notprovide diversity training or direct corporate philanthropy toward the GLBT community.
While the hotel, resort and casino industry scoredan average of 86 percent, only Kimpton Hotels, aboutique chain based in San Francisco, received ascore of 100 percent. Similarly, while telecommunications has long been an innovator in fair workplace policies, only AT&T Corp. received 100 percent. ALLTEL, which serves more than 12 million
customers in 26 states, scored 0 percent. Also, Ford
Motor Co. was the only car manufacturer toachieve 100 percent as its industry lagged behind
the index average at 71 percent.

Performance by Industry
Industry

Avg. No. of companies
Score with 100 percent

Advertising, Marketing
Aerospace and Defense
Airlines
Apparel, Dept. Stores
Automotive
Financial Services
Chemicals and Biotechnology
Computer and Data Services
Computer Software
Computer Equipment
Consulting
Engineering and Construction*
Entertainment
Food, Beverages and Groceries
Forest and Paper Products*
Health Care
High-Tech Equip.
Home Furnishing*Hotels, Resorts and Casinos
Insurance
Law Firms
Mail and Freight Delivery**
Manufacturing
Miscellaneous**
Oil and Gas
Pharmaceuticals
Publishing and Printing
Retail and Consumer Products
Telecommunications
Tobacco**Transportation, Travel*
Utilities

43
79
86
71
71
86
71
72
86
86
86
57
79
71
71
86
79
29
86
86
86
72
64
57
79
79
86
71
86
79
79
75

0
0
1
2
1
10
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
5
0
1
8
0
1
4
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
5
1
0
1
3

Index Average = 79 percent*Only three companies rated in industry; average may not reflect
industry as a whole**Only two companies rated; average may not reflect industry as awhole
Gray: Industry average below overall index average
Bold: Industry average higher than overall index average

11

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Both the consulting sector and the computer software industry, which have historically been at theforefront of GLBT-friendly policies, had no companies that scored 100 percent. In those two
industries, companies such as Accenture, Booz
Allen Hamilton, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
Microsoft, Oracle and Quark all achieved 86 percent — the same as their industry averages. Yet,none have amended their non-discrimination policies to include gender identity and/or expression.
The retail and consumer products sector stands
out as having five leading firms scoring 100 percent, but an industry average of 71 percent — still
below the index average. While companies such as
Borders Group, Best Buy and SC Johnson &Son set the example, the industry had 19 firmsthat scored below the index average, notably,
Kmart Corp. (57 percent), Wal-Mart Stores (43percent) and RadioShack Corp (29 percent).

SECTION 4: OTHER BESTAND WORST PRACTICESThe 2004 HRC Corporate Equality Index limited
its scope to criteria for which HRC has statistically significant data that allow it to compare companies across market sectors. To be sure, there areother policies, practices and performance indicators that speak to a company’s sensitivity to
GLBT concerns. While the policies and practices
discussed below are not currently included among
the criteria used in rating companies, they represent best and worst practices among a select groupof companies. As will be discussed later, some ofthese policies will be included in the Corporate
Equality Index in 2006.

12

AT THE FOREFRONT OF EQUALITY
Spousal Equivalency: Beyond domestic
partner health insurance
While providing health and medical benefits toemployees’ same-sex partners and spouses is an
essential measure of a GLBT-friendly employer,
many employers offer other benefits that are also
important to GLBT families. Certain benefits,
such as pensions and other retirement plans, areregulated by state and federal agencies that placesome restrictions on how an employer may
administer them. Nonetheless, employers have theoption to provide many other benefits to same-sex
couples without incurring great expense.
As marriage for same-sex couples becomes a reality in Massachusetts and elsewhere, some companies are taking steps to equalize all of their benefit
programs. Most notably, 74 rated companies
extend to employees’ same-sex partners or spouses
equal benefits in all areas surveyed, including:• dental and vision insurance;• insurance coverage for a domestic
partner’s dependents;• continuation of health coverage under
COBRA-like programs;• bereavement leave;• family and medical leave similar to that
required under the Family and Medical
Leave Act;• relocation assistance;• and pension survivorship benefits.

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Employers that Offer Spousal Equivalency Benefits to Same-Sex Partners
FortuneName
Rank
Agilent Technologies Inc.
305
Amgen Inc.
246
Anheuser-Busch
142
Apple Computer Inc.
301
Applebee’s International Inc.
n/r
AT&T Wireless Services
120
Bank of America Corp.
24
Bausch & Lomb Inc.
n/r
Borders Group Inc.
452
Campbell Soup Co.
280
Charles Schwab
402
ChevronTexaco Corp.
6
Chubb Corp.
174
Cigna Corp.
101
Cingular Wirelessn/r
Cisco Systems
100
Citigroup Inc.
8
Continental Airlines
231
Credit Suisse First Boston
n/rDell Inc.
31
Deloitte & Touchen/r
Dow Chemical Co.
44
Eastman Kodak Co.
149
Fannie Mae
20
FleetBoston Financial Corp.
140
Gap Inc.
124
Gateway Inc.
484
Genentechn/r
186
General Mills Inc.
General Motors Corp.
3
Gillette Co.
215
Goldman Sachs
74
Hartford Financial Services Co.
102
Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe n/r
Hewitt Associatesn/rHewlett-Packard Co.
11
9
IBM

Index
Score
100
71
79
100
86
50
86
100
100
71
100
86
100
86
86
100
100
86
86
100
86
86
100
71
86
86
71
86
86
86
86
100
86
86
86
100
100

Name
Intel Corp.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
John Hancock Financial
Johnson & Johnson
KPMG LLP
Lehman Brothers Holdings
Lexmark International Inc.
Lincoln National Corp.
McKinsey & Co. Inc.
MetLifeMorgan Stanley
Motorola Inc.
Nike Inc.
Nordstrom Inc.
Northern Trust Corp.
PacifiCorp
Pennzoil-Quaker State Co.
PepsiCo Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
PG&E Corp.
Prudential Financial Inc.
QUALCOMM Inc.
SBC Communications Inc.
SC Johnson & Son Inc.
Shell Oil Co.
Staples Inc.
Sun Microsystems
SunTrust Banks Inc.
Time Warner Inc.
ToyotaVerizon Communications
Viacom Inc.
Vision Service Plan
Wachovia Corp.
Wells Fargo & Co.
Xcel Energy
Xerox Corp.

Fortune
Rank
53
26
192
30
n/r
113
364
339
n/r
36
39
61
184
286
n/r
n/r
n/r
62
25
179
57
434
33
n/r
n/r
152
173
272
27
n/r
12
64
n/r
73
49
254
130

Index
Score
100
100
79
86
86
100
86
86
86
100
86
100
100
86
86
86
43
100
100
100
100
71
86
100
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
100
86
100

n/r = not ranked

13

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Grossing Up: Compensating forunequal tax treatment
An increasing number of employers extend healthinsurance coverage to the same-sex partners ofcompany employees because it makes good business sense and it is the right thing to do. In 2003,
for instance, an average of three employers per day
added such coverage.3 Nonetheless, same-sex couples and their employers must pay federal income
tax on the fair market value of the benefits. And
in all but three states — California, Vermont and
Massachusetts — they must also pay state income
taxes on the fair market value of such benefits.
A small number of employers account for thisunequal treatment by “grossing up” employees’salaries to cover the cost of the additional taxes.
Nine companies have told HRC that they offer
such a benefit to employees:

Name

Anheuser-Busch
Bright Horizons
Family Solutions Inc.
General Electric Co.
KeyspanMorgan Stanley
PacifiCorp
Shell Oil Co.
UnumProvident Corp.
Worldspan Tech. Inc.

n/r = not ranked

14

Index
Score

Fortune
Rank

79

142

71
86
100
86
86
86
79
100

n/r
5
274
39
n/r
n/r
187
n/r

Global non-discrimination policies
Given the variance in international law regarding
sexual orientation and gender identity, consistentworkplace policies are even more important in an
increasingly global marketplace. For instance,
countries such as Egypt imprison or execute gay
people. Other countries, including the UnitedStates, have laws that allow discrimination basedon sexual orientation or gender identity and/or
expression to persist. Employers find that employees may be more willing to relocate if they can beassured they’ll continue to receive benefits andthat they’ll be protected from discrimination no
matter where they live.
HRC’s Corporate Equality Index survey results
indicate that a number of employers are implementing consistent policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and/or expression across all of their operations. Of the 359 rated companies that prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation, 134,
or 37 percent, told HRC that their policy applies
to employees worldwide. More than two-thirds ofthe 58 companies that include gender identity
and/or expression in their non-discrimination
statements extend such protections worldwide.

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Supplier diversity
Supplier diversity programs have typically been avehicle through which employers actively seekbusiness with minority- and women-owned businesses. With the recent development of a certification process for GLBT-owned businesses by the
National Gay and Lesbian Chamber ofCommerce, some employers have extended their
supplier diversity programs to include GLBTowned businesses. Of the 128 rated companies
that indicated to HRC that they have supplier
diversity programs, 11, or 9 percent, seek businessfrom GLBT vendors as part of this program.
They are:

Name

Index
Score

FortuneRank

Avaya Inc.
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Coors Brewing
IBM
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Jenner & Block
Miller Brewing Co.
Nextel Communications
Shell Oil Co.
Wells Fargo & Co.
Wyndham International Inc.

100
86
100
100
100
86
100
71
86
100
86

401
n/r
430
9
26
n/r
n/r
183
n/r
49
n/r

n/r = not ranked

Transgender health benefits
Access to appropriate health care is a pressing issue
for many transgender people. According to a survey of transgender people conducted by the
National Center for Lesbian Rights and theTransgender Law Center, more than 30 percent ofrespondents indicated that they had been discriminated against while trying to access health care.4
Even when a transgender person has health insurance coverage, most health insurance plansexclude many of the procedures outlined as medically necessary for transsexuals. Labeled the“transgender exclusion,” disqualified treatments
may include psychological counseling for initialdiagnosis and ongoing transition assistance, hormone replacement therapy, doctor’s office visits tomonitor hormone replacement therapy and sexreassignment surgery.5
Despite these hurdles, several companies offer
insurance plans that cover some of the specificneeds of transsexual employees. For instance, 89
rated companies indicated that their health planscover one or more treatments, such as psychological counseling, hormone replacement therapy, or
medical visits to monitor the effects of hormone
replacement therapy. HRC cautions that eventhese numbers may be slightly misleading. Whilesome policies may not have an explicit transgender exclusion, coverage of certain procedures andtreatments may be denied if the plan advisers or
administrators decide that such treatments do notmeet the plan’s definition of medical necessity.

15

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Clear leaders in this area are 10 companies that
told HRC that they offer insurance plans thatcover all of the treatments and procedures HRC
tracks, ranging from counseling by a medical
health professional to sex reassignment surgery:

Name

Index
Score

FortuneRank

Amgen Inc.
Avaya Inc.
Faegre & Benson
IBM
Imation Corp.
Lehman Brothers Holdings
PPG Industries
Quest Diagnostics
SBC Communications Inc.
State Farm Group

71
100
100
100
79
100
71
86
86
71

246
401
n/r
9
n/r
113
236
366
33
18

n/r = not ranked

RESISTING EQUALITY
Marriage for same-sex couples
It didn’t take long for questions about benefits eligibility to reach the workplace following theissuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples
in Massachusetts, San Francisco and elsewhere in
2004. Many companies were prepared for theadvent of legal marriage for same-sex couples
because they already offered domestic partner
benefits to employees’ same-sex partners.
At least two companies, however, are publicly
resisting any effort to treat same-sex spouses
equally. Cumberland Farms of Canton, Mass.,
issued a memo to its employees May 12, 2004,

16

just five days before marriage licenses became
available in the state, stating that “employees will
not be able to enroll a same-sex spouse” in thecompany’s health insurance plan. Also, an
employee of Dallas, Texas-based Dean Foods Co.
who returned from San Francisco and requested
benefits for his same-sex spouse was denied.
Cumberland Farms defended its position by saying in the memo, “this approach is permitted byfederal laws.” Because the company self-insures,
this statement is technically accurate. However,federal law does not prevent employers fromextending such coverage; it merely sets a minimum standard that employers must meet. HRC
recommends that all employers treat employees’
same-sex spouses as they do opposite-sex spouses.
(HRC could not calculate a Corporate Equality
Index score for Cumberland Farms or Dean Foods
because neither responded to HRC’s survey and
HRC was otherwise unable to find answers for allof the index’s criteria.)

SECTION 5:
RAISING THE BAR
THE 2006 CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEXThe HRC Corporate Equality Index does not —and perhaps cannot — measure all of the waysthat companies are demonstrating their commitment to equality in the workplace. Nevertheless,
HRC has been collecting data beyond that used togenerate companies’ scores on the Corporate
Equality Index for the past three years with theintention of adding criteria to the rating system topromote the myriad other workplace policies andprocedures that are important to GLBT and fairminded people. In our efforts both to measure

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

and promote best practices, HRC has also evaluated trends in the benefits industry, employee satisfaction surveys, and collected feedback and advice
from business leaders and GLBT community
leaders to select criteria that are challenging yetachievable.
Recognizing that some policy changes take time to
implement, HRC has committed to changing its
rating methodology incrementally and to giving
employers at least 12 months’ notice before doingso. HRC is also committed to providing theresources and tools that employers need to meeteach new criterion counted in a company’s rating.
(For tools and resources on all of the criteria in theindex, visit www.hrc.org/worknet.) Therefore, HRC
will add new criteria to the rating system
beginning in 2006.
PROPOSED NEW FACTORS IN
THE RATING SYSTEM FOR 2006
Beginning in 2006, HRC intends to enhance thecriteria it uses to assess company performance inthree areas: equal benefits, workplace policies fortransgender employees and diversity training.
Equal benefits: HRC tracks several benefits inaddition to medical/health insurance that employers regularly extend to their married employees aspart of their efforts to recruit and retain talented
workers. HRC will award points to companies
based on whether they:
1. Provide COBRA-like leave to employees’
domestic partners as they do to employees’
spouses
2. Provide vision, dental and dependent medical
coverage to employees’ domestic partners ifthey also provide that coverage to employees’
spouses

In addition, HRC will award points to companies
that extend equal benefits to employees’ same-sex
domestic partners or spouses in at least three of thefollowing areas:
1. Bereavement leave
2. Family and medical leave (akin to the leave
granted under the federal Family and Medical
Leave Act)
3. Supplemental life insurance
4. Relocation assistance
5. Adoption assistance
6. Retiree medical coverage
7. Automatic pension benefits for employees’
same-sex partners in the event of an employee’s death (applies to defined benefit plans only)
Transgender employee policies: In addition to
including “gender identity” or “gender identity
and/or expression” in the primary non-discrimination policy, companies will receive points if they
provide evidence that they have met at least one of
the following:
1. Have written guidelines or procedures
concerning employees who transition on the job
2. Allow employees to take short-term
disability leave for the purpose of a transition
3. Cover the following treatments for employees
under going gender transition, if they coverthem for any employees:a) Mental health counselingb) Hormone replacement therapyc) Doctor visits to monitor hormone
replacement therapyd) No exclusions for surgical procedures forthe purpose of sex reassignment

17

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Diversity training: HRC will only allot points tocompanies that offer diversity education for
employees that covers both sexual orientation andgender identity and/or expression. The current
system awards points for companies that offer
training either covering sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
ADJUSTING THE RATING METHOD
In 2006, HRC will also adjust how it calculates
the Corporate Equality Index score. The most significant change in this area is how HRC intends
to treat the sole negative criterion — whether
companies engage in corporate actions that undermine the goal of GLBT equal rights. Since theindex’s launch in 2002, HRC has automaticallyawarded companies points on this measure if it
found no evidence that the company had engagedin action that would undermine the goal of equal
rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgenderpeople. Beginning in 2006, HRC will deduct
points from such bad actors.
HRC will communicate with companies over the
next year to assist them in understanding the newcriteria. HRC will also solicit feedback from companies about their experiences in striving to meetthese new expectations as we further refine the
HRC Corporate Equality Index.

18

CONCLUSIONSIn just three years, the HRC Foundation’s
Corporate Equality Index has sparked importantand measurable change at some of America’s
largest and most successful companies. The rapid
growth in the number of employers prohibiting
discrimination based on gender identity and/or
expression is arguably a direct result of the factthat the Corporate Equality Index requires such a
policy in order to achieve 100 percent. That factor
alone rose 347 percent since the CEI was firstreleased. And while the total number of companies offering this protection remains relatively
small, HRC expects this to continue to be a highgrowth factor in future years of the index.
Other measured factors that have grown relatively
rapidly over the short life of the index are therecognition of GLBT employee resource groups
and the inclusion of sexual orientation and/or
gender identity issues in diversity training. Again,
by letting companies know that GLBT employees,
consumers and investors value such efforts, HRC
has helped to move corporate America along thecontinuum toward equality.
The Corporate Equality Index is having the effect
HRC had hoped for when it developed this measuring tool. Most companies would prefer toreceive high scores on this index, just as theywould on other indexes that grade them on othercommitments to diversity and fairness. The number of companies at the bottom of the index continues to shrink, and an increasing number ofcompanies are going beyond the minimum
required to get 100 percent.

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Granted, there are still a few companies that don’t
get it when it comes to basic equality for their
GLBT employees. For instance, a handful of companies continue to oppose shareholder resolutions
asking simply for a broader non-discrimination
policy. HRC was disturbed to learn this year thata small number of companies have contributed tofiercely anti-GLBT organizations. It is our hopethat by shining a light on this practice, we canstop these contributions in the future.
Finally, while we will add some new factors to ourindex in 2006, we don’t expect that this will
reduce the number of companies with perfectscores. The changes will help to publicize theprogress already under way at a substantial number of U.S. companies, and will make even clearer
that corporate America — long a leader in basic
fairness for GLBT employees — is continuing toblaze the trail because equality is good business.

19

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

APPENDIX 1: 2004 CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX SURVEYRESPONSE DEADLINE: April 30, 2004
Please complete this form and send it to:
HRC WorkNet
1640 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Fax: (202) 628-0517
Email: HRCWorkNet@hrc.org
Contact Alice Budisatrijo at aliceb@hrc.org or (202) 572-8917 if you have questions.
Basic Company Information
HRC will not publish or distribute contact information externally.
Company Name:Your Name:Your Title
Your Department/Division:Your Phone Number:Your Email Address:
NON-DISCRIMINATION / EEO POLICIES
1. Does your firm bar employment discrimination based on sexual orientation by including the words“sexual orientation” in its primary non-discrimination or EEO policy? (Please attach a copy of the policy)
j Yes, we include “sexual orientation” in our primary non-discrimination or EEO policy(Please attach a copy of the policy)
j Yes, but only in one or more subsidiaries or labor agreements
j We do not have such a policy, but are working toward this in the next one year
j We do not have such a policy
j Do not know

1a. If YES, does the policy apply to all your global operations including non-U.S. citizens based abroad?

20

j Yes
j No
j Do not know
j We have no employees based outside the U.S.

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

2. Does your firm bar employment discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression by
including the words “gender identity” or “gender identity or expression” in its primary non-discrimination or EEO policy? (Please attach a copy of the policy)
j Yes, we include “gender identity” or “gender identity or expression” in our primary

non-discrimination or EEO policy
j Yes, but only in one or more subsidiaries or labor agreements
j We do not have such a policy, but are working toward this in the next one year
j We do not have such a policy
j Do not know
2a. If YES, does the policy apply to all your global operations including non-U.S. citizens
based abroad?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know
j We have no employees based outside the U.S.

BENEFITS
3. Does your company offer health insurance coverage to your employees’ same-sex domestic partners(or same-sex spouses where same-sex marriage licenses are available i.e., San Francisco as of this writing)? If no, please also answer 3d.
j Yes, firm-wide
j Yes, but only in one or more subsidiaries or labor agreements
j We do not offer domestic partner health benefits, but plan to offer them in the next one year
j We do not offer domestic partner health benefits and have no plans to offer themj Do not know
j Definition of domestic partner includes same-sex partners only
j Definition of domestic partner includes both same- and opposite-sex partners

3a. If YES, what year did same-sex domestic partner health insurance benefits become available at yourcompany?
j Yearj Do not know

21

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

3b. If YES, does your company “gross up” wages for employees who enroll for domestic partner healthbenefits to cover the added tax burden from the imputed value of the benefit that appears as income forthe employee?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know

3c. If YES, are the benefits offered to employees in all your global operations where such benefits would
be available to opposite-sex spouses, including non-U.S. citizens based abroad?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know
j We have no employees based outside the U.S.

3d. If NO, does your company offer cash compensation to employees to purchase their own healthinsurance for domestic partners?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know

4. What other benefits does your company offer to domestic partners of U.S. employees? Please place“Y” or “N” depending on what your company offers:
Benefits Available to
Opposite-Sex Spouses
Available to Same-Sex Partners (or Spouses)
j Dentaljj Visionjj Domestic partner’s dependent medical coveragejj COBRA/COBRA-like benefitsjj Bereavement leavejj FMLA-like leavejj Supplemental lifejj insurance for the DPjj Relocation/travel assistancejj Adoption assistancejj Beneficiary for pensions and survivorship benefitsj22

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Please describe any other benefits offered to employees’ domestic partners:

5. Does your company offer one or more health insurance plan(s) that cover the following specifichealth care needs of transgender employees? Please check all that apply:
j Counseling by a mental health professionalj Pharmacy benefits covering hormone therapy
j Medical visits to monitor the effects of hormone therapy
j Surgical procedures for the purpose of sex reassignment(often called sex-reassignment surgery or SRS)j Other (please describe below)
j We do not offer such a health insurance plan, but we are working with our health insurance

provider(s) to be able to offer this in the next one year
j We do not offer such a health insurance plan and have no current plans to do soj Do not know

Please describe any other benefits offered to transgender employees:

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING
6. How many reporting levels are there between your firm’s CEO and the individual whose primary
job function is work force diversity that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender diversity?
(0=direct report)_________# Levels
j Do not know

7. Does your company have an officially recognized LGBT employee affinity group?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know

23

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

7a. If NO, would your company allow LGBT employees to use its facilities and other resources to forma group if one expressed interest?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know

7b. If YES, please provide contact information for the group:
j Name of Group:j Contact (s):j Phone:j E-mail:j Website:
j Mailing Address

8. Does your company have a firm-wide diversity council or working group with a mission that specifically includes LGBT diversity?
j Yes, we have a diversity council or working group that includes LGBT issues
j No, we have a diversity council or working group, but LGBT issues are not covered
j No, we do not have a diversity council or working groupj Do not know

9. Does your company provide diversity awareness or employee training, what topics are covered andwho is required to attend? (The topics covered may be included as part of a general overview of diversity, or in topic-specific sessions.)

j Other (please describe)
Diversity Topic
Sexual Orientation
Gender Identity
Disability
Race/Etnicity
GenderOther (please describe)24

All required
to attend

All managers
or supervisors
required to attend

Some employees
requied to attend

None required toattend, but
training is offered

Not offered

j
j
j
j
j
j

j
j
j
j
j
j

j
j
j
j
j
j

j
j
j
j
j
j

j
j
j
j
j
j

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

Please describe the other training employees receive:

10. Does your firm have a supplier diversity program?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know

10a. If YES, does your firm seek out LGBT-owned companies in your supplier diversity program?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know

10b. If YES, what percentage of your current supply chain is LGBT-owned?
j%j Do not know

MARKETING AND ADVERTISING/SPONSORSHIP/PHILANTHROPY
11. During the past year, has your company engaged in marketing or advertising to theLGBT community?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know

25

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

11a. If YES, please describe a maximum of three such advertising or marketing campaigns.
Name of campaign

Number of outlets
utilized (include
total number of TV,
online, print andother outlets)

Scope of Media(National, acrossyour entire operating area, LGBT
only, local, other)select all that areappropriate

Duration of campaign (in years)

Creative content(gay themed or
general audience)

1.
2.
3.

11b. Please provide any additional information about your company’s advertising campaigns.
Please use an extra sheet if necessary.

12. During the past year, has your company sponsored a LGBT health, educational, political or community event?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know

12a. If YES, please describe a maximum of three events that your company has sponsored.
Name of event

1.
2.
3.

26

Number of events
sponsored

Scope of event(National, acrossyour entire
operating area,
local, other)

How many years
have you sponsored
this event?

Type of organization sponsored(political, educational, health,community)

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

12b. Please provide any additional information about your company’s event sponsorships.
Please use an extra sheet if necessary.

13. During the past year, has your company provided financial support either directly or through yourcorporate foundation, in-kind donations or otherwise to LGBT health, educational, political or community related organizations?
j Yes
j No
j Do not know

13a. If YES, please describe a maximum of three such activities.
Name of
Organization

Type of support(Cash grant,
inkind, other)

Average annual
amount or percent
of total giving

How many years
have you supported
this organization?

Type of organization sponsored(political, educational, health,community)

1.
2.
3.
13b. Please provide any additional information about your company’s philanthropic activities.
Please use an extra sheet if necessary.

14. Please include any other information that would illustrate how your company views lesbian, gay,bisexual or transgender employees, consumers or investors. (This could include information on innovative business practices that affect the gay community, further description of employee benefits, innovative products or services adapted for the gay community, etc.)

Thank you for taking the time to complete the HRC Corporate Equality Index survey.

27

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

APPENDIX 2: THE EQUALITY PRINCIPLES(As Amended by the Equality Project (501c3) executive board, copyright 2001)
1. The company will prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender
expression or gender identity as part of its written employment policy statement.
2. The company will disseminate its written employment policy statement company-wide.
3. The company will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of any employee's actual or

perceived health condition, status or disability.
4. The company will offer equal health insurance and other benefits to employees to cover

their domestic partners regardless of the employee's marital status, sexual orientation, gender
expression or gender identity.
5. The company will include discussions of sexual orientation, gender expression and gender

identity as part of its official employee diversity and sensitivity training communications.
6. The company will give employee groups equal standing, regardless of sexual orientation,

gender identity or gender expression.
7. The company advertising policy will avoid the use of negative stereotypes based on sexual

orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
8. The company will not discriminate against advertising, marketing or promoting eventson the basis of sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity.
9. The company will not discriminate in the sale of its goods or services based on sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity.
10. The company will not bar charitable contributions to groups and organizations on thebasis of sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity.

28

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

APPENDIX 3: 2004 CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX SCORES(As some scores may have changed since the printing of this report, please visit www.hrc.org/worknet for the latest sources.)
EMPLOYER NAME

CITY

STATE

CEI SCORE

Aetna Inc.
Agilent Technologies Inc.
American Airlines (AMR Corp.)
American Express Co.
Apple Computer Inc.
AT&T Corp.
Avaya Inc.
Bausch & Lomb Inc.
Best Buy Co. Inc.
Borders Group Inc.
Capital One Financial Corp.
Cargill Inc.
Charles Schwab
ChoicePoint Inc.
Chubb Corp.
Cisco Systems
Citigroup Inc.
Coors Brewing
Dell Inc.
Deutsche Bank
Eastman Kodak Co.
Faegre & Benson
Ford Motor Co.
Goldman Sachs
Hewlett-Packard Co.
IBMIntel Corp.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Keyspan
Kimpton Hotels
Kraft Foods Inc.
Lehman Brothers Holdings
Levi Strauss & Co.
Lucent Technologies Inc.
MetLifeMiller Brewing Co.
Mitchell Gold Co.
Morrison & Foerster

Hartford
Palo Alto
Dallas-Fort Worth Airport
New York
Cupertino
New York
Basking Ridge
Rochester
Minneapolis
Ann Arbor
Falls Church
Minneapolis
San Francisco
Alpharetta
WarrenSan Jose
New York
GoldenAustin
New York
Rochester
Minneapolis
Dearborn
New York
Palo Alto
ArmonkSanta Clara
New York
Brooklyn
San Francisco
Northfield
New York
San Francisco
Murray Hill
New York
Milwaukee
Taylorsville
San Francisco

CT
CA
TX
NY
CA
NY
NJ
NY
MN
MI
VA
MN
CA
GA
NJ
CA
NY
CO
TX
NY
NY
MN
MI
NY
CA
NY
CA
NY
NY
CA
IL
NY
CA
NJ
NY
WI
NC
CA

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

29

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 200430

EMPLOYER NAME

CITY

STATE

CEI SCORE

Motorola Inc.
Nationwide
NCR Corp.
New York Times Co.
Nike Inc.
Owens Corning
PepsiCo Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
PG&E Corp.
Prudential Financial Inc.
Replacements Ltd.
SC Johnson & Son Inc.
Southern California Edison
UBS
Wells Fargo & Co.
Whirlpool Corp.
Worldspan Technologies Inc.
Xerox Corp.
Electronic Arts
ABN AMRO
Accenture
Adobe Systems Inc.
Affiliated Computer Services
Allstate (The Allstate Corp.)
Anthem Inc.
Applebee’s International Inc.
Aramark Corp.
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Bank of America Corp.
Bank of New York Co.
BellSouth Corp.
Boeing (The Boeing Co.)
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
BP America
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Cendant Corp.
ChevronTexaco Corp.
Cigna Corp.

Schaumburg
Columbus
Dayton
New York
Beaverton
ToledoPurchase
New York
San Francisco
NewarkGreensboro
RacineRosemead
New York
San Francisco
Benton Harbor
Atlanta
Stamford
Redwood City
ChicagoChicagoSan Jose
DallasNorthbrook
Indianapolis
Overland Park
Philadelphia
BridgewaterCharlotte
New York
AtlantaSeattleMcLeanChicagoNew York
New York
San Ramon
Philadelphia

IL
OH
OH
NY
OR
OH
NY
NY
CA
NJ
NC
WI
CA
NY
CA
MI
GA
CT
CA
IL
IL
CA
TX
IL
IN
KS
PA
NJ
NC
NY
GA
WA
VA
IL
NY
NY
CA
PA

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
93
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

EMPLOYER NAME

CITY

STATE

CEI SCORE

Cingular Wireless
CMP Media LLPContinental Airlines
Cox Communications Inc.
Credit Suisse First Boston
Cummins Inc.
Daimler Chrysler Corp.
Darden Restaurants
Deloitte & Touche
Delta Airlines Inc.
Dow Chemical Co.
DTE Energy Co.
E*TRADE Group Inc.
EarthLink Inc.
Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS)
Ernst & Young
Federated Department Stores
FleetBoston Financial Corp.
Gannett Co. Inc.
Gap Inc.
Genentech
General Electric Co.
General Mills Inc.
General Motors Corp.
Gillette Co., The
GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
Hannaford Brothers
Harris Bankcorp Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Co.
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc.
Hasbro Inc.
Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe
Hewitt Associates
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
Honeywell International Inc.
Hyatt Hotels Corp. (H Group Holding)International Paper Co.
Jenner & Block

AtlantaManhasset
HoustonAtlanta
New York
Columbus
Auburn Hills
Orlando
New York
Atlanta
Midland
Detroit
Menlo Park
AtlantaPlano
New York
Cincinnati
BostonMcLeanSan Francisco
San Francisco
Fairfield
Minneapolis
DetroitBostonResearch Triangle Park
Scarborough
ChicagoHartford
Wellesley
Pawtucket
San Francisco
Lincolnshire
NutleyMorristown
ChicagoPurchase
Chicago

GA
NY
TX
GA
NY
IN
MI
FL
NY
GA
MI
MI
CA
GA
TX
NY
OH
MA
VA
CA
CA
CT
MN
MI
MA
NC
ME
IL
CT
MA
RI
CA
IL
NJ
NJ
IL
NY
IL

86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86

31

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

32

EMPLOYER NAME

CITY

STATE

Johnson & Johnson
Kaiser Permanente Foundation Health Plan Inc.
KPMG LLP
Lexmark International Inc.
Limited Brands Inc.
Lincoln National Corp.
Marriott International
MasterCard Inc.
McGraw-Hill (The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.)
McKinsey & Co. Inc.
Mellon Financial Corp.
Merck & Co. Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Co.
Microsoft Corp.
Morgan Stanley
Nordstrom Inc.
Northeast Utilities System
Northern Trust Corp.
Oracle Corp.
PacifiCorp
Polaroid Corp.
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Procter & Gamble (The Procter & Gamble Co.)
Quark Inc.
Quest Diagnostics
Qwest Communications International Inc.**
Raytheon Co.
RJ Reynolds Tobacco
SAFECO Corp.
SBC Communications Inc.
Schering-Plough Corp.
Scholastic Corp.
Seagate Technology Inc.
Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Sempra Energy
SGI (Silicon Graphics Inc.)
Shell Oil Co.
SLM Corp. (Sallie Mae)

New Brunswick
OaklandMontvale
Lexington
Columbus
Philadelphia
Bethesda
Purchase
New York
New York
Pittsburgh
Whitehouse Station
New York
Redmond
New York
SeattleBerlinChicagoRedwood Shores
PortlandCambridge
New York
Cincinnati
DenverTeterboro
Englewood
Lexington
Winston-Salem
SeattleSan Antonio
MadisonNew York
Scotts Valley
Hoffman Estates
San Diego
Mountain View
HoustonReston

NJ
CA
NJ
KY
OH
PA
MD
NY
NY
NY
PA
NJ
NY
WA
NY
WA
CT
IL
CA
OR
MA
NY
OH
CO
NJ
CO
MA
NC
WA
TX
NJ
NY
CA
IL
CA
CA
TX
VA

CEI SCORE

86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

EMPLOYER NAME

CITY

STATE

CEI SCORE

St. Paul Companies
Staples Inc.
Starbucks Corp.
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
Subaru of America Inc.
Sun Microsystems
SunTrust Banks Inc.
Target Corp.
Texas Instruments Inc.
Time Warner Inc.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America Inc.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp.
Unisys Corp.
United Airlines (UAL Corp.)
United Parcel Service (UPS)
US Airways Group
Verizon Communications
Viacom Inc.
Vision Service Plan
Visteon Corp.
Volkswagen of America Inc.
Wachovia Corp.
Wainwright Bank & Trust Co.
Walgreens Co.
Walt Disney Co.
Washington Mutual Savings Bank
Wellpoint Health Networks
Wyndham International Inc.
Xcel Energy
Anheuser-BuschCalpine Corp.
Colgate-Palmolive Co.
Imation Corp.
John Hancock Financial Services Inc.
KLA-Tencor
Northrop Grumman Corp.
PNC Financial Services Group Inc.
Reebok International

St. PaulFramingham
SeattleWhite Plains
Cherry Hill
Palo AltoAtlanta
Minneapolis
DallasNew York
ErlangerHartford
Blue BellElk Grove
Atlanta
Arlington
New York
New York
Rancho Cordova
Dearborn
Auburn Hills
Charlotte
BostonDeerfield
Burbank
SeattleThousand Oaks
DallasMinneapolis
St. Louis
San Jose
New York
OakdaleBostonSan Jose
Los Angeles
Pittsburgh
Stoughton

MN
MA
WA
NY
NJ
CA
GA
MN
TX
NY
KY
CT
PA
IL
GA
VA
NY
NY
CA
MI
MI
NC
MA
IL
CA
WA
CA
TX
MN
MO
CA
NY
MN
MA
CA
CA
PA
MA

86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79

33

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

34

EMPLOYER NAME

CITY

STATE

CEI SCORE

Ryder System Inc.
UnumProvident Corp.†
3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing)
Abbott Laboratories
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
Advanced Micro Devices
Air Products & Chemicals Inc.
Albertson’s Inc.
Altria Group Inc. (Philip Morris Companies Inc.)
Amazon.com
Amgen Inc.
Applied Materials Inc.
Barnes & Noble Inc.
Ben and Jerry’s Homemade Inc.
Blockbuster Inc.
Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc.
Campbell Soup Co.
Cinergy Corp.
Coca-Cola (The Coca-Cola Co.)
Compass Group North America
Consolidated Edison Co.
DelphiDeluxe Corp.
Dole Food Co. Inc.
Duke Energy
Edison International
Eli Lilly & Co.
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Gateway Inc.
Georgia PacificHome Depot
Interpublic Group of Companies Inc.
Keane Inc.
Kellogg Co.
Kimberly-Clark
Lillian Vernon Corp.
Lockheed Martin Corp.

Miami
Portland
St. PaulAbbot Park
New Albany
Sunnyvale
Allentown
Boise
New York
SeattleThousand Oaks
Santa Clara
New YorkSouth Burlington
DallasBostonCamdenCincinnati
Atlanta
Charlotte
New York
Troy
Shoreview
Westlake Village
Charlotte
Rosemead
Indianapolis
Washington
McLean
North Sioux City
AtlantaAtlanta
New York
BostonBattle Creek
Irving
New Rochelle
Bethesda

FL
ME
MN
IL
OH
CA
PA
ID
NY
WA
CA
CA
NY
VT
TX
MA
NJ
OH
GA
NC
NY
MI
MN
CA
NC
CA
IN
DC
VA
SD
GA
GA
NY
MA
MI
TX
NY
MD

79
79
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

EMPLOYER NAME

CITY

STATE

CEI SCORE

Men’s Wearhouse Inc., The
Nextel Communications
Nims Associates Inc.
Northwest Airlines Corp.
Perkins & Will
Pitney Bowes Inc.
PPG Industries
PPL Corp.
Principal Financial Group
Providian Financial Corp.
QUALCOMM Inc.
Safeway Inc.
Sara Lee Corp.
Siemens Energy & Automation Inc.
Sprint Corp.
State Farm Group
Supervalu
University Hospitals of Cleveland
US Bancorp
Verio Inc.
Visa International
Vivendi Universal
Williams Companies Inc.
Working Assets Funding Service
Baxter International Inc.
Bear Creek Corp.
ConocoPhillips
Deere & Co.
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
Allegheny Energy
ArhausAvon Products
Biovail Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Bridgestone Americas Holding Inc. (Firestone)
Caterpillar
Clorox Co.
Coca-Cola Enterprises
Digitaria Interactive Inc.

HoustonRestonDecatur
Eagan
ChicagoStamford
Pittsburgh
Allentown
Des Moines
San Francisco
San Diego
Pleasanton
ChicagoAlpharetta
Overland Park
Bloomington
Eden Prairie
Cleveland
Minneapolis
Englewood
Foster City
New York
Tulsa
San Francisco
Deerfield
Medford
Houston
MolineGlenview
Hagerstown
Columbus
New York
Bridgewater
Nashville
PeoriaOaklandAtlanta
San Diego

TX
VA
IL
MN
IL
CT
PA
PA
IA
CA
CA
CA
IL
GA
KS
IL
MN
OH
MN
CO
CA
NY
OK
CA
IL
OR
TX
IL
IL
MD
OH
NY
NJ
TN
IL
CA
GA
CA

71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
64
64
64
64
64
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57

35

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 200436

EMPLOYER NAME

CITY

STATE

CEI SCORE

Donna KaranDPR Construction
DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours)
EMC Corp.
Estee Lauder Companies
FedEx Corp.
Gallup Organization, The
General Dynamics Corp.
Hallmark Cards Inc.
Health Net Inc.
Hilton Hotels Corp.
Host Marriott
Instinet Group Inc.
J.C. Penney Corp. Inc.
Kmart Corp.
Knight Ridder
Kroger Co., The
L.L. Bean Inc.
Liz Claiborne Inc.
Marimba Inc.
MassMutual Life Insurance
Mattel Inc.
McDonald’s Corp.
National City Corporation
Progressive (The Progressive Corp.)
Reuters America Holdings Inc.
SAP America
Software House International
TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc.
Tech Data Corp.
TIAA-CREF
Times Mirror Co.
Whole Foods Market Inc.
WPP Group USA
AT&T Wireless Services
Domino’s Inc.
Howard & Howard Attorneys, PC
New York Life Insurance Co.

New York
Redwood City
Wilmington
Hopkinton
New York
MemphisPrinceton
Falls Church
Kansas City
Woodland Hills
Beverly Hills
Bethesda
New York
Plano
Troy
San Jose
Cincinnati
Freeport
New York
Mountain View
Springfield
El Segundo
Oakbrook
Cleveland
Mayfield Village
New York
Newton Square
Somerset
Lake Forest
Clearwater
New York
Los Angeles
Austin
New York
Redmond
Ann Arbor
Bloomfield Hills
New York

NY
CA
DE
MA
NY
TN
NJ
VA
MO
CA
CA
MD
NY
TX
MI
CA
OH
ME
NY
CA
MA
CA
IL
OH
OH
NY
PA
NJ
IL
FL
NY
CA
TX
NY
WA
MI
MI
NY

57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
50
50
50
50

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

EMPLOYER NAME

CITY

STATE

CEI SCORE

Pathmark Stores Inc.
A.G. Edwards Inc.
American President Lines
AutoZone Inc.
Avnet Inc.
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
Cambridge Technology Group
Carlson Companies Inc.
Costco Wholesale Corp.
D&B (The Dun & Bradstreet Corp.)
Dana Corp.
Dow Jones & Co. Inc.
Fifth Third Bancorp
H. E. Butt Grocery Co.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc (The)
Humana Inc.
KB Home
Latrobe Brewing Co.
Lear Corp.
Marsh & McLennan
MBNA Corp.
Morningstar Inc.
N. W. Ayer & Partners
Navistar International Corp.
Northern Telecom Inc.
Office Depot Inc.
Omnicom Group
Ortho-Neutrogena
PacifiCare Health Systems
Pennzoil-Quaker State Co.
Rockwell Collins
Scudder Kemper Investments
Southwest Airlines
Toys “R” Us Inc.
Vertis
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Waste Management Inc.
Wyeth

Carteret
St. Louis
Oakland
MemphisGreat Neck
Baltimore
Cambridge
Minneapolis
Issaquah
Murray Hill
Toledo
New York
Cincinnati
San Antonio
BoulderLouisville
Los Angeles
LatrobeSouthfield
New York
Wilmington
ChicagoNew York
Warrenville
Nashville
Delray Beach
New York
Los Angeles
Santa Ana
HoustonPomonaNew York
DallasWayne
Baltimore
Bentonville
HoustonMadison

NJ
MO
CA
TN
NY
MD
MA
MN
WA
NJ
OH
NY
OH
TX
CO
KY
CA
PA
MI
NY
DE
IL
NY
IL
TN
FL
NY
CA
CA
TX
CA
NY
TX
NJ
MD
AR
TX
NJ

50
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43

37

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

EMPLOYER NAME

CITY

STATE

CEI SCORE

Entergy Corp.
Advanced Digital Information Corp.
AIG (American International Group)
AquilaArcher Daniels Midland Co.
Automatic Data Processing Inc.
Baldor Electric Co.
Bayer Corp.
Cerner Corp.
Circuit City Stores Inc.
Cracker Barrel Restaurants (CBRL Group Inc.)
Emerson Electric Co.
Franklin Templeton Investments
Genuine Parts Co.
H. J. Heinz Co.
Harrah’s Entertainment Inc.
Hormel Foods Corp.
Lauren Manufacturing Co.
May Department Stores Co., The
Maytag Corp.
MeadWestvaco Corp.
Nestle Purina PetCare Co.
Newell Rubbermaid Inc.
Nissan North America
R.R. Donnelley & Sons
RadioShack Corp.
Rite Aid Corp.
Rohm & Haas
SRA International Inc.
BB&T Corp.
Exxon Mobil Corp.
International Steel Group
Meijer Inc.
National Gypsum
Perot Systems Corp.
Shaw Industries Inc.
ALLTEL Corp

New Orleans
Redmond
New York
Kansas City
DecaturRoseland
Fort Smith
Pittsburgh
Kansas City
Richmond
LebanonSt. Louis
San Mateo
Atlanta
Pittsburgh
Las Vegas
AustinNew Philadelphia
St. Louis
NewtonStamford
St. Louis
Freeport
Gardena
ChicagoFort WorthCamp Hill
Philadelphia
Fairfax
Winston-Salem
IrvingRichfield
Grand Rapids
Charlotte
DallasDaltonLittle Rock

LA
WA
NY
MO
IL
NJ
AR
PA
MO
VA
TN
MO
CA
GA
PA
NV
MN
OH
MO
IA
CT
MO
IL
CA
IL
TX
PA
PA
VA
NC
TX
OH
MI
NC
TX
GA
AR

36
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
0

* It appears that significant shareholder of Coors Brewing Co. stock may
have supported an institution whose mission includes undermining thegoal of GLBT equality. To HRC’s knowledge, such support has not affected the company’s policies or practices related to GLBT employees.

38**It appears that significant shareholder of Qwest Communications
International Inc. stock may have supported an institution whose mission
includes undermining the goal of GLBT equality. To HRC’s knowledge,
such support has not affected the company’s policies or practices related
to GLBT employees.

† It appears that significant shareholder of UnumProvident Corp. stock
may have supported an institution whose mission includes undermining
the goal of GLBT equality. To HRC’s knowledge, such support has notaffected the company’s policies or practices related to GLBT employees.

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF ANTI-GLBT GROUPS(Corporate fondation giving was evaluated for contributions to the following anti-GLBT groups.)

Alabama Policy InstituteCenter For Arizona Policy
Arkansas Family Council
Campaign for California Families
California Family Policy Council
Rocky Mountain Family Council
Campaign on Moral Concerns
California Family Council
Colorado for Family Values
Family Institute of Connecticut
Take Back Miami
American Family Association
Georgia Family Council
Hawaii Family Forum
Cornerstone of Idaho
Illinois Family InstituteEagle Forum
Concerned Christians of America
Indiana Family Institute
Iowa Family Policy Center
Westboro Baptist Church
The Family Foundation
Louisiana Family Forum
Christian Civic League
Christian Coalition of Maine
Maine Grassroots Coalition
Maryland Family Values AllianceTake back Maryland
Massachusetts Family Institute
Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage
Catholic Conference
Catholic Action League
Equal Rights Not Special Rights
Ann Arbor
Political Action Committee
Minnesota Family Association
Mississippi Family Council
Family First
North Carolina
Family Policy Council
Christian Action Leagueof North Carolina
North Dakota Family Alliance
New Jersey Family Policy Council
League of American Families
New York Family Policy Council
Citizens for Community Values

Ohio Roundtable
Oklahoma Family Policy Council
Oregon Citizens Alliance
Stronger Families For Oregon
Pennsylvania Family Institute
Palmetto Family Council
South Dakota Family Policy Council
Tacoma Ministerial AllianceFree Market Foundation
Families Northwest
West Virginia Family Foundation
Alliance for Life Ministries
Wisconsin’s Christian United
Bradley Foundation
Abiding Truth Ministries
Alliance Defense Fund
Alliance for Marriage
American Family Association
Christian Coalition
Concerned Women for America
Culture and Family InstituteDavid H. Koch
Charitable Foundation
Exodus International
Family Policy Network
Family Research Council
Focus on the FamilyFree Congress Foundation
Harvest USA
Homosexuals Anonymous
MacLellan Foundation
National Association for the
Research and Therapyof Homosexuality
Public Advocate
PFOX
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Traditional Values Coalition
Family Research Institute of
Wisconsin
Americans for Truth
About Homosexuality
Arkansas faith and ethics council
Association of Maryland Families
Christian Action Network
Christian Coalition of America
Christian Family Network

Citizens for Parents’
Rights of Maryland
Coalition for the protectionof Marriage in Nevada
Constitution Party of Texas
Family Policy Council
Family Protection Lobby
Family Research Institute
Family Taxpayers Network
Hawaii Alliance for Traditional
Marriage and Values
International Organizationof Heterosexual Rights
Intercessors for America
Kalamazoo Citizens Voting Yes
Kerusso Ministries
Liberty Counsel
Marriage Benefits Defense Initiative
Marriage Law Project
Marriage Watch
Massachusetts Parents
Rights Coalition
Mission America
Montana Citizens for
Decency Through Law
National Non-Sectarian Councilof Pro-Family Activists
Newton Parents for Moderation
Northstar Legal Center
Pacific Justice Institute
Pro-Family Network
Royal Oaks Citizens Voting
No to Special Rights
Save Our Scouts
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Stop Promoting
Homosexuality International
Texas Justice Foundation
Toward Tradition
Transforming Congregations
Traverse City Voting Yes
Vision America
Wisconsin Christians United

39

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

NOTES
1. Companies with no known anti-GLBT activity automatically earned 14 percentage points.
Otherwise, companies lost points based on such actions as: undue influence by a significant shareholder calculated to undermine a company’s employment policies or practices related to its GLBT
employees; or directing corporate charitable contributions in a manner calculated to undermine
equality for GLBT people. Scores on this criterion may also be based on information related to acompany’s actions, such as: opposing shareholder resolutions reasonably aimed at encouraging the
adoption of non-discrimination policies covering sexual orientation and/or gender identity; or directing resources from a majority-owned subsidiary to an institution(s) whose mission or goals undermine equality for GLBT people; or engaging in proven practices that are contrary to the company’s
written GLBT employment policies.
2. The 2004 shareholder votes in favor of amending the company’s non-discrimination policy toinclude sexual orientation were 27.5 percent at ALLTELL and 28.9 percent at ExxonMobil. The votein 2003 at Emerson Electric Co. was 10 percent. The resolution at Emerson Electric was not filed in
2004 but is planned for 2005.
3. Herrschaft, Daryl and Kim I. Mills, The State of the Workplace for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual andTransgender Americans 2003 (Washington: Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2004).
4. Minter, Shannon and Christopher Daly, Trans Realities: A Legal Needs Assessment of San
Francisco’s Transgender Communities (San Francisco: National Center for Lesbian Rights; San
Francisco: Transgender Law Center, 2003), 16. Also available at
http://www.transgenderlawcenter.org/tranny/pdfs/Trans%20Realities%20Final%20Final.pdf.
5. Most private insurance plans expressly exclude services related to sex-reassignment. While sex-reassignment surgery is excluded from Medicare coverage, there is no exclusion under the federal
Medicaid statute. As a result, according to the National Center for Lesbian Rights, “almost every
court that has ever considered the issue has concluded that states cannot categorically exclude sexreassignment surgeries for Medicaid coverage.” Nonetheless, many Medicaid statutes exclude procedures related to sex-reassignment, and it is difficult for many transsexuals to obtain Medicaid reimbursement for medical procedures related to sex-reassignment. (Shannon Minter, “Representing
Transsexual Clients: Selected Legal Issues,” National Center for Lesbian Rights, http://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/translaw.htm#_ftnref49 (accessed November 2003).)40

CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX 2004

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Daryl Herrschaft, Deputy Director for HRC WorkNet
Since 1998, Herrschaft has overseen HRC WorkNet, the workplace project of the Human Rights
Campaign Foundation. In this capacity, he monitors and evaluates corporate policies surrounding
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors. He led the launch of
HRC’s Corporate Equality Index in 2002; this is his third annual CEI report. He is also lead authorof the HRC Foundation's annual report, The State of the Workplace for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual andTransgender Americans.
Herrschaft has consulted with dozens of major corporations seeking to implement domestic partner
benefits and/or non-discrimination policies. He has presented HRC findings to diverse audiences,including The Conference Board, the Society for Human Resource Management and the New York
City Council. He is frequently called upon by national and local media and has appeared on CNN
and CNBC. He is a member of Linkage Inc.’s Diversity Summit Advisory Board and the board of
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates. Before joining HRC, he was a research associate at the Urban
Institute. He holds a bachelor’s degree from The George Washington University.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
HRC WorkNet was aided in the development of the survey instrument and the index criteria by the
HRC Business Council, an advisory group composed primarily of GLBT executives in a variety of
disciplines from major U.S. corporations. The group provides their substantial expertise and experience in corporate policy and decision making to help ensure that the index is rigorous and fair. The
HRC Business Council was not involved in the administration of the survey, tabulation of the dataor calculation of any scores.

HRC BUSINESS COUNCIL
John K. Barry, New York

Cynthia Martin, San Francisco

Selisse Berry, San Francisco

Sue McManus, Columbus, Ohio

Kevin Cheng, San Francisco

Steve Mulligan, Saugatuck, Mich.

Wes Combs, Washington

Mendes Napoli, Beverly Hills, Calif.

Scott Coors, Golden, Colo.

Marc Nichols, Washington

Kim Cromwell, Provincetown, Mass.

Donna Rosen, Road Rock, Texas

Scottie Ginn, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

Rick Schroder, Houston

Jamison Green, Union City, Calif.

Rob Shook, Cedar Park, Texas

John Hassell, Washington

Richard Spencer, Washington

Emily Jones, Rochester, N.Y.

John Sullivan, Oakdale, Minn.

Grant Lukenbill, San FranciscoLouise Young, Dallas41

www.hrc.org/worknet
A project of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 1640 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
9/2004