Top contractor offers few rights to gay employees

The government's top contractor lags behind hundreds of private companies in offering workplace rights to its gay and lesbian employees, according to a new report. Lockheed Martin Corp., a Bethesda, Md.-based company that did $20.4 billion worth of business with federal agencies in fiscal 2001, received a zero-the lowest rating-in a report that ranks 319 major corporations by their policies toward gay and lesbian workers. The report, issued by the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington gay advocacy group, faults Lockheed for having no policies "aimed at treating their [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] employees fairly." The survey ranked companies on whether they had written policies banning discrimination against gays and lesbians; whether they offered health insurance to domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees; and whether they included sexual orientation issues in diversity training, among other criteria. More than 90 percent of firms surveyed prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. CBRL Group Inc./Cracker Barrel and Emerson Electric Co. also got a zero. "By failing to take any affirmative positions on the treatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees and consumers, and by actively refusing to implement non-discrimination policies, these companies have not met a single criterion of the [rating] index," said the report. Lockheed does not mention sexual orientation in its equal opportunity policy, but this is not indicative of any bias against gays and lesbians, said Meghan Meriman, a company spokeswoman. "Lockheed Martin sees the definition of diversity as all-inclusive and we value each employee individually, and we don't try to determine all the ways they are different," she said. "We don't tolerate discrimination or harassment of any kind." Lockheed's policy specifically guarantees equal opportunity to all employees without regard to race, religion, sex, age, national origin and veteran status. When asked why sexual orientation wasn't part of this the list, Meriman said it was implicitly included. "That list could go on for another paragraph," she said. She added the company could also revisit its policy of not providing health insurance to the domestic partners of employees. Federal employees do not enjoy domestic partner benefits.