Instead, they suspended him for three games, fined him $50,000 and sent him to anger-management classes. They only fired him after ESPN aired the video, which went viral and prompted demands for Rice’s firing from everyone from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin to basketball star LeBron James.

DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti, a member of the Rutgers Board of Trustees and of the Rutgers Board of Governors Standing Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, said he was never informed about Rice’s anti-gay slurs or the fact that the video existed. He said he had been told there was a disciplinary issue, which was addressed with the suspension. DiversityInc General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Transformation Practices Lora Fong also is a member of the Rutgers Board of Trustees and also was uninformed about Rice’s specific transgressions.

“Had I known what he said and did, I would have urged Rutgers to fire him on the spot,” Visconti said.

One of the clips was broadcast on ESPN’s Outside the Lines last night. It was part of a series of clips compiled by retired NBA player Eric Murdock during practices from 2010–2012. Murdock was Rice’s Director of Player Development. All of the video, demonstrating prolonged verbal and physical abuse of players and frequent use of the anti-gay slur “f - - - - t,” were shown to Pernetti in November.

In a statement issued today, Barchi took responsibility for not initially firing Rice:

Coach Rice’s abusive language and actions are deeply offensive and egregiously violate the university’s core values.

When video excerpts of basketball practices were reviewed last fall by Athletic Director Tim Pernetti, he immediately notified me and sought the advice of internal and outside counsel. The university hired an independent investigator to look into this matter thoroughly. Based on the external investigator’s findings and recommendations, Tim and I agreed that Coach Rice should be suspended, penalized $75,000 in fines and lost salary, ordered to undergo anger management counseling, and put on notice that his behavior would be closely monitored. Tim Pernetti also made it clear to Coach Rice that there would be zero tolerance for additional infractions. Tim kept me fully apprised and I supported his actions.

Yesterday, I personally reviewed the video evidence, which shows a chronic and pervasive pattern of disturbing behavior. I have now reached the conclusion that Coach Rice cannot continue to serve effectively in a position that demands the highest levels of leadership, responsibility and public accountability. He cannot continue to coach at Rutgers University. Therefore, Tim Pernetti and I have jointly decided to terminate Mike Rice’s employment at Rutgers.

Pernetti separately issued a statement:

I am responsible for the decision to attempt a rehabilitation of Coach Rice. Dismissal and corrective action were debated in December and I thought it was in the best interest of everyone to rehabilitate, but I was wrong. Moving forward, I will work to regain the trust of the Rutgers community.

Public Values

The issue of being inclusive is critical to Rutgers’ public image, especially after the very public September 2010 suicide of gay student Tyler Clementi and the subsequent trial and publicity about bullying and invasion of privacy.

As Visconti has stated in his Ask the White Guy column, “Credibility received for your professed values is dependent on your decisive execution of actions based on your values. This does not preclude empathy and forgiveness for mistakes, but values cannot be parsed without exposure to repercussions.” He also notes that in this age of transparency, an organization cannot EVER think it can hide offensive actions.

The post Why Did Rutgers Wait to Fire Coach After Anti-Gay and Abusive Actions? appeared first on DiversityInc.

All stated their opposition to the bill, but the damage was done, and as the heat started to rise, the governor signed the bill into law, bringing Tennessee into the circle of states that affirmatively oppress their LGBT citizens.

The corporate reaction to our questions was swift but after the fact. I think most companies’ headquarters were genuinely surprised by the actions of their colleagues on the chamber’s board.  That leads us to a “teachable moment”—here are some ground rules I’ve learned by observing companies closely:

1. Decision making is best by having clarity on your values.
Credibility received for your professed values is dependent on your decisive execution of actions based on your values. This does not preclude empathy and forgiveness for mistakes, but values cannot be parsed without exposure to repercussions.

2. Your best possible business outcome is dependent on your ability to equitably execute on fair and equitable treatment.
People treated fairly have a better relationship with you—better relationships transcend commodity pricing and increase the quality of your revenue stream. Better relationships also increase employee engagement and productivity—as well as reduce regrettable loss.

3. In the age of Facebook and Twitter, you cannot hide.
Your actions will be publicly evaluated and the resulting addition or subtraction from your brand image will have an impact on your business.

Here is some food for thought regarding human rights, business and our LGBT neighbors:

Rights afforded to one group that do not diminish another group’s rights are what this country is all about. This was the basis of women’s suffrage and the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act—and it is the basis of the lawsuit that overcame the anti-LGBT Proposition 8 in California. The anti-LGBT forces could not produce a single expert who could show that same-sex marriage in any way diminished heterosexual marriage. Married couples have certain legal rights, and extension of those legal rights to same-sex couples does not hurt heterosexual marriages and does not force your house of worship to marry same-sex couples. Freedom from a state-run religion and freedom of religion from the state are part of our Constitution.

Here’s some personal advice if you think marriage is for one man and one woman: Don’t marry someone of your own sex.

Finally, especially for companies that are publicly traded and/or regulated by the government (which, in aggregate, includes just about every company), there are some things to keep in mind regarding communications, donations and membership:

1. Communications sent in “secrecy” are worse than no letter at all, as “secret” complaints constitute tacit approval.

2. An organization cannot stink selectively. The chamber’s actions were anti-LGBT rights, period. This cannot be parsed, and if your continued membership in an organization conflicts with your stated values, then you have a problem across the entire organization.

3. Conflict in values produces brand damage and potential exposure to lawsuits and is detrimental to shareholder equity. Your personal opinions or politics do not trump your organization’s need to do business properly. This is especially true for leaders.

Over the almost 14 years of publishing DiversityInc, we’ve seen the practice of managing diversity become more effective by orders of magnitude in the most competitive companies. Questions about diversity are now on 100 percent of DiversityInc Top 50 companies’ requests for proposals (RFPs). This directly communicates a statement of values. The ripple effect of diversity values is aggregating into a bow wave as globalization is enhanced by web and cell communications.  This gives companies unprecedented opportunities—and unprecedented responsibilities—that transcend nations.

This creates seemingly complex challenges—but I don’t think they’re all that complex: If you have clarity on your values, then don’t violate them; if you’re doing business with a company that violates your values, you are violating your values; and if you make a donation or support an organization that has facets that violate your values, then you are violating your values.

We will all make mistakes. As Dr. Cornel West said at one of our events, “We are all cracked vessels,” and the public is very forgiving of a speedy and forthright apology, particularly if it’s backed by redemptive action. Such as, for example, resigning from the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce.

Luke Visconti’s Ask the White Guy column is a top draw on DiversityInc.com. Visconti, the founder and CEO of DiversityInc, is a nationally recognized leader in diversity management. In his popular column, readers who ask Visconti tough questions about race/culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and age can expect smart, direct and disarmingly frank answers.

The post Ask the White Guy: Decision Making, Clarity of Values & What to Do When It Goes Horribly Wrong appeared first on DiversityInc.

“These can be both more common and more hurtful. For example, it’s easy to label someone as horrible (and unprofessional) for asking about your sex life, but the line is blurrier when the question isn’t overt,” says Navetta.

When faced with an off-color comment or an inappropriate question, it’s important to remember that people do not necessarily mean to offend. Doug Case, Business/Marketing Segment manager for Wells Fargo’s Community Bank in San Francisco, suggests it’s best to address the lack of cultural competence. “We expect colleagues to have inclusive language, but we need to hold ourselves accountable to inviting that dialogue.” says Case, who serves as an Executive Sponsor for Wells Fargo’s PRIDE Team Member Network.

Remember—everyone has their own biases and internal barriers they need to work through. “Don’t write people off,” advises Navetta. “Becoming inclusive—especially about something that is new to someone—isn’t an overnight transformation. It is a journey, and we need to be the ones who show them how.”

Things NOT to Say to LGBT Employees

1. “Wow. I never would have guessed that you’re [gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender]!
While this comment might be meant as a compliment—acknowledging that a person does not fall into the traditional, sometimes negative stereotype—it can still cause offense. Don’t believe the sitcoms: “Not all gay guys love Madonna,” says Michael Moran, Interactive Art Director, DiversityInc. And not all lesbians watch sports. Addressing commonplace assumptions like these is a good first step in creating inclusion.

2. “Is one of you the husband and one the wife? I don’t get it.”
Why do relationships have to be about traditional roles? In any marriage or relationship, it’s about partnership and sharing responsibilities. Reframing the conversation this way can help open mindsets about same-gender partnerships and marriage.

3. To a Transgender: “What’s your real name? What did you used to look like?”
Transgender issues are still a very new topic to many people, says Navetta, which creates an organic curiosity among people. “But asking about someone’s ‘past’ life is an absolute no-no. “People should be seen as who they are today, in the affirmed gender in which they live,” she says.

4. “Your lifestyle is your business. We don’t need to talk about it here.”
Referring to sexual orientation and gender identity as a “lifestyle” or “sexual preference” suggests that being LGBT, and ultimately identifying as such, is a choice. Being able to talk about your partner at work, putting family photos in your cubicle, bringing your partner to the office holiday party—these are simple things that allow ALL employees to bring their whole selves to work and fully engage.

5. “It’s too bad you’re gay.”
“Yeah, too bad for you. I get this from flirtatious women after the truth dawns,” says Moran. While it’s meant as a harmless flirtation or joke, this can imply that there is something wrong with being gay. Why else would you call it “bad”?

6. “I have a friend who’s [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] that you should meet.”
Just because two people share or have similar sexual orientations does not mean they automatically will be able to blossom a friendship or other relationship. Every person has their own personality, interests and hobbies, but being gay isn’t one of them.

More Things Not to Say

• You’re gay? That’s great. I love gay people.
• Do you watch Glee?
• What should I [wear, do with my hair]?
• Do you know if [insert name] is gay too?
• Does that mean you don’t want kids?
• Wait, you’re not attracted to me … right?

The post ‘Are You the Husband or the Wife?’ 6 Things NOT to Say to LGBTs appeared first on DiversityInc.

“Red symbolizes love. That’s what marriage is all about,” says Charlie Joughin, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the LGBT-rights advocacy group that started the campaign by turning its equal-sign logo red. The HRC also is offering free equality stickers as a thanks to anyone willing to show their support.

What started as a simple color swap has evolved into massive public promotion, with online users—as true to our meme-hungry society—putting their own spin on the equality symbol. How will you show your support? Take a look at our selection of these powerful images, then visit the Human Rights Campaign flickr page for more.

Same-Gender Equality Lady Liberty & Justice

Same-Gender Equality Wedding Rings

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Painted Hand

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Words of Marriage

Same-Gender Equality Les Miserables

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Collage

Same-Gender Marriage Equality: We Are the 58 Percent

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Comes Out

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Zombies

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Grumpy Cat

The post Red for Equality: What Are the 10 Most Powerful Memes for Same-Gender Marriage? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Legal and political experts say that the Supreme Court’s hesitation stems from the idea of creating monumental changes to societal practices in one fell swoop. “There was a genuine concern about going too far, too fast,” says Charles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor and former President Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general. “I sensed a genuine regret that the court had this case before it now.”

The Supreme Court’s oral arguments this week on Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) mark a historic event—it’s the first time in history the justices will hear arguments for cases advocating same-gender marriage. Their decisions could have sweeping impacts on the definition of marriage in the United States: a positive ruling could finally grant same-gender couples the right to wed nationally, affording same-gender couples equitable financial and tax benefits as heterosexual couples.

But is America really not ready for same-gender marriage to be recognized nationally? Reactions to the Supreme Court’s debate indicate that the public may feel the judges are just too old to “get it”: “Supreme Court Justices have entirely too much power. And some of them are too old to make decisions about a changing world,” tweeted Black American Author Terry McMillan, voicing similar sentiments expressed by Major League Baseball Player José Canseco Capas, Jr., and other social-media users.

Supreme Court Justices have entirely too much power.And some of them are too old to make decisions about a changing world.

— Terry McMillan (@MsTerryMcMillan) March 27, 2013

The rising support for same-gender marriage, however, is not simply a generational issue—it’s reflective of shifting American views of LGBT rights. Fifty-three percent of Americans in 2012 (up 32.5 percent from 2009) agree that same-gender couples should receive the same federal benefits as their heterosexual counterparts, according to a USA Today poll.

Opinions on same-gender marriage show increasingly positive long-term trends at an accelerated rate, according to PollingReport.com data cited by The New York Times.

But will increased public support have any affect on the high court’s decision?

Obama, Corporations Lean on Supreme Court

Increasing pressure and advocacy for same-gender marriage from high-profile politicians—including President Obama’s administration and more than 100 GOP leaders—corporations, and new legislation—such as the Pentagon’s decision to issue same-gender couple benefits—had many legal experts anticipating a victory for LGBT-rights supporters.

Amicus “friend of the court” briefs were filed to the Supreme Court, petitioning the justices to strike down Prop 8 and DOMA. Among corporations included on the brief were DiversityInc Top 50 companies Aetna, Ernst & Young, Johnson & Johnson, Marriott International, as well as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Exelon, MassMutual, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Microsoft, New York Life, The Ogilvy Group, Pfizer, State Street Corporation, The Walt Disney Company and Xerox.

Additionally, the Howard University School of Law’s Civil Rights Clinic filed its own amicus brief, which compared Prop 8, DOMA and similar anti-same-gender-marriage bans with Jim-Crow era laws that prohibited interracial marriage and reinforced continuing discrimination against Blacks.

Developing Same-Gender-Marriage Arguments: Prop 8 & DOMA

With hearings underway, the nine Supreme Court justices reportedly have been wrestling with Prop 8, first arguing over the case’s legal standing in court and also tackling LGBT-related issues including  the definition of marriage, political consensus behind the movement, the consequences of raising children in a same-gender-couple home and the historical legalities of LGBT relationships.

“The problem with the case is that you’re really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters … it is a cliff,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, the anticipated swing vote, said. “You’re doing so in a case where the opinion is very narrow. Basically that once the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70 percent of the way … I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”

“Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years,” said Justice Samuel Alito, indicating arguments to uphold bans against same-gender marriage. “Same-sex marriage is very new … And it may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.”

The comments from the judges fall true-to-form with The New York Times’ Adam Liptak’s predictions: “The decisions will almost certainly be closely divided. Even justices who agree about the right outcome may disagree about rationales … The only remotely plausible unanimous decision is dismissal on standing grounds in the Proposition 8 case.”

Despite the seemingly negative stance of several of the Supreme Court justices, Liptak indicates that there is still hope for the same-gender-marriage movement. “Be that as it may, practitioners and justices say it is the rare oral argument that wins or loses a case,” he wrote.

5 Potential Outcomes: How Will the Supreme Court Rule?

Arguments to uphold the bans still have strong backers, in particular is Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been labeled as the “swing vote” in both cases. Kennedy previously voiced his hesitations toward backing pro-same-gender-marriage legislations, noting his belief that “a democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.”

According to CBS News, there are five possible outcomes of the cases:

1. Same-gender marriage is constitutional: Marriage for all couples would be recognized as a right and same-gender marriage finally would be recognized by the federal government. This would also override locally held bans against same-gender marriage in 39 states.
2. Same-gender marriage is not a constitutional right. This would set a large roadblock for the LGBT-rights movement, however, states would still be able to afford LGBT-couples the right to marry.
3. Marriage and civil unions are equivalent. Obama’s Administration has levied an argument that same-gender marriage should be extended to states currently recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships, giving these couples essentially equivalent rights as heterosexual, married couples. The difference would remain in the terminology.
4. California’s same-gender marriages protected. Prop 8 would officially be ruled as unconstitutional and bans finally and permanently would be revoked.
5. Cases are dismissed. Amicus briefs have been filed by supporters of Prop 8 claiming the proponents have no standing in court—that the initial trail court case ruling was appropriate and do not have an adverse interest, or had to have been harmed in some way, to continue a lawsuit and to come before the Supreme Court.

“Even if you lose the case, and I think that’s very unlikely, you would say that the case has been a success because it’s changed public opinion so dramatically,” Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, told Politico. “It’s really unbelievable what a successful communications and litigation strategy has combined to do in such a short time.”

Legal experts anticipate decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA to come sometime this summer.

What Would You Pay to Witness the Prop 8, DOMA Strike-Down?

LGBT-rights activists and political enthusiasts lined up for front-row seats: Many have been  rallying and camping outside the courthouse since last week, hoping to be one of the 100 people admitted free access to the courtroom hearings. And news sources report that while seats in the courtroom are free-to-attend, having someone save you a place in the days-long line will cost you upwards of $6,000 a pop.

It’s a high price that many are willing to pay: There will be no TV broadcasts, media coverage or digital updates (including Twitter and social media) allowed in the room while the oral arguments are underway. Only a transcript and an audio recording will be released once the arguments have concluded.

Prop 8: Same-Gender Marriage Disputed in California

Although the Supreme Court had struck it down just months earlier, California’s Proposition 8 ban against same-gender marriage was voted into law in 2008. Thousands of same-gender couples in the state already had been legally married but others were prevented from doing so. Proposition 8 has since been struck down by two federal courts as unconstitutional. Should the Supreme Court rule against Prop 8?

What is DOMA? A Case for Discrimination Against LGBTs

The Defense of Marriage Act originally was passed by Congress and signed into law by  President Bill Clinton’s Administration in 1996: DOMA prevents the recognition of same-gender marriage by the Federal Government. The law was struck down last year by two federal appeals courts: Boston in June 2012 and New York in October, and Windsor v. United States now challenges the law’s constitutionality and claims discrimination against LGBTs.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the DOMA appeal, same-gender couples in states that recognize same-gender marriage would qualify for the same federal marriage benefits, tax breaks and Social Security survivor benefits that heterosexual married couples are entitled to under the law.

—Stacy Straczynski

The post Why the Supreme Court May Not Recognize Same-Gender Marriage appeared first on DiversityInc.

Last month’s column offered suggestions to legally address healthcare and financial concerns and objectives. One of those suggestions was a “Living Together” agreement, which explains what property belongs to whom and how assets should be divided in the event that the relationship ends while both partners remain living. We think this document, which can also be called a Domestic Partnership Agreement or DPA, is tremendously important.

The inability of domestic partners to marry in many states also means there is often no prescribed blueprint for handling disputes or dissolution of a relationship. A legally recognized DPA can save time, energy and resources in the event of a partnership’s dissolution. It may also provide a guide to a judge who may not be sympathetic to either partner.

The general purpose of a DPA is to address potentially stressful situations or events before they arise and state what solutions both partners feel are fair. Many couples neglect to consider DPAs, as they may see such an agreement as an admission that their relationship is destined to fail. However, a same-gender couple should think of it as similar to a married couple’s prenuptial agreement: Having an agreement in place may help avoid greater turmoil, recrimination or contempt during a stressful time and could help prevent a complete break in the relationship.

Specific areas of concern to be addressed might include division of assets, income support and child custody and care. In the event one or both partners do not abide by the terms of the agreement, the DPA provides the court a legal basis to enforce agreement in the absence of applicable law. Even when a domestic partnership is legally recognized in a particular state, the DPA still serves as a useful and durable document if a legally partnered couple moves to another state that does not acknowledge the partnership.

A DPA is a legal contract and not a do-it-yourself project. Appropriate legal counsel should be employed to draft the document. For a DPA to be considered fair and durable, both parties must enter into the agreement voluntarily, both parties must disclose all pertinent information, and both parties must have the opportunity to have the document examined and explained to them by independent counsel. There can be numerous instances where one partner can have a significant conflict of interest due to differences in wealth, income or legal claims to children. As with other legal documents like wills and trusts, the partners’ legal counsel should verify the number of attestations by witnesses and if the document needs to be notarized to promote enforceability. It is important to discuss with your attorney the enforceability of the agreement in your state or a state where you might relocate, as your location may affect its recognition.

A great advantage of legal contracts is that they allow interested parties to discuss and lay out a set of agreements before conflicts arise. In so doing, they help avoid distrust, confusion and doubt, and promote understanding and harmony. A thoughtful and well-crafted DPA should offer nothing less.

Wells Fargo Advisors is not a tax or legal advisor. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, member SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer and separate nonbank affiliate of Wells Fargo & Company, No. 33 on the 2012 DiversityInc Top 50.

The post Wells Fargo LGBT Advice: Domestic Partnership Agreements appeared first on DiversityInc.

Luke Visconti: Why has outreach to the LGBT community been such a priority for Wells Fargo?

Mark Ng: At one time our outreach to the LGBT market was because it’s the right thing to do, because it’s part of our overall visions of diversity—which still holds true. But the right answer now is because it’s imperative, just like with all the other segments, to our business. A lot of corporations, not only Wells Fargo, are really waking up to the fact that this is a segment that is affluent, profitable, loyal and has really, really stepped up in terms of responding to corporations holistically and authentically targeting them.

Visconti: PRIDE, Wells Fargo’s LGBT resource group, is very involved in the community. How does the company ensure that the messages you get from that involvement go all the way to the top of the organization?

Ng: That’s very key in terms of making programs work. One of the examples of how this plays out is our anti-bullying focus. Over the past few years Wells Fargo has really stepped up in terms of making an anti-bullying stance in support of safe schools. But that was something that came from team members expressing that this was a growing issue that they were seeing, feeling, hearing in their communities. It was something that was put up to management, and also senior management felt it was something that was not only important but also consistent with Wells Fargo’s vision and values. And because it was not only confirmed from the team members but also something that our management really supported as consistent with our vision and values, this is now a program that we focus on year-round in terms of really ensuring that our schools are safe for everybody.

Visconti: How does CEO John Stumpf ensure that senior management—not just LGBT senior management, but also heterosexual senior management—is involved?

Ng: Oftentimes there are questions on whether LGBT fits in the company’s vision of diversity—is it only ethnic segments? But one of the best things that our CEO has done is to make it very, very clear from the beginning that not only LGBT; not only the ethnic segments, people with disabilities, women—all these groups really constitute our vision of diversity and all these groups count.

Visconti: With this idea of different resource groups collaborating, I think there are two things at play. The maturity of Wells Fargo’s culture in terms of diversity and inclusion, and younger people being less siloed than people of my generation. What do you think about that? 

Ng: There was a point in time when people were really honed in on what makes us unique, whereas now the headliner is really what’s common amongst everybody. And the more team-member networks, customers, whoever is in the search and journey of diversity really focuses on that, it’s going to bring us to new ideas, news ways of partnership like these team-member networks coming together, with folks who normally would never work together getting partnered. They are starting to see opportunities, and that’s what’s exciting about the space that we are in—even the very definition of diversity is changing before our eyes.

The post How Wells Fargo’s Resource Group & CEO Reach LGBT Markets appeared first on DiversityInc.

“It’s not about what I think I represent but what our people think I represent,” said  Kelvin Womack, Principal, Deloitte, at DiversityInc Innovation Fest! Wolmack detailed Deloitte’s best practices to retain and develop talent by leveraging the connection between diversity, innovation and stronger collective thinking.

Additionally, Womack says this inclusive leadership is key in helping LGBT employees feel comfortable enough to “come out” at work, which can drastically improve retention among this group. He explained how the firm improves its innovation potential and marketplace success by leveraging its inclusive culture and encouraging employees to bring their whole selves to work.

The post What’s Deloitte’s Top Leadership Imperative? appeared first on DiversityInc.

It’s not an easy question, as the third year of our intense Global Diversity Research reveals. We surveyed more than 200 corporate officers in 46 countries in eight regions. We found wide discrepancies in attitudes toward inclusion of women; ethnic, racial and religious minorities; people with disabilities; and people from lower-income or -class groups. The greatest differences are in inclusion of LGBT people, which varies from U.S. and European corporate cultures where LGBT resource groups are increasingly common to Asian, Middle Eastern and African countries where being out means being ostracized, imprisoned or even killed.

Our in-depth interviews with more than 20 corporations on their best practices revealed that a few multinationals, all of which have led the way in diversity and inclusion in the United States, have jumped out front in their efforts to create inclusive cultures. IBM is at the forefront of working to change attitudes and laws in countries that discriminate against LGBT people. Other companies, such as Ernst & Young, Sodexo and Deloitte, are determined to create safe spaces within their corporate walls in all locations.

The universal denominator in assessing global-diversity efforts is obviously gender, and the inclusionary efforts are as disparate as the forms of government in each country. We found that in many European countries and in Australia, the issues surround the proverbial “glass ceiling” and efforts to train women (and men) in culturally competent leadership styles. In Asian countries, the biggest concern is in helping women and their families balance traditional domestic responsibilities with the need to work and succeed outside of the home.

Our research increasingly shows that certain D&I initiatives—global and local diversity councils, resource groups, flexible workplaces and talent-development plans aimed at women and underrepresented groups—are having a demonstrable impact on the percentages of women in the workforce, management and senior management. This occurs in every region and in almost every country we studied.

We’re about to embark on our next round of global research in which we’ll expand the database and go even deeper to learn what’s having an impact and what next steps are needed. And our consultants are working with corporations to successfully implement their global-diversity initiatives. For more information, go to “Global Diversity Research Executive Summary: 203 Data Submissions in 46 Countries.”

Engaging workers globally is a distinct challenge, with issues that have similarities to the U.S. but also vary widely on a local basis. What’s universal is that solid best practices yield inclusive cultures—and more involved and effective employees.

–Barbara Frankel, Executive Editor and Senior Vice President, DiversityInc

The post What Does Engagement Mean Globally? appeared first on DiversityInc.

In last month’s column, we explained why investment planning for same-sex couples is often more complicated than it is for heterosexual couples. The complexities and unique circumstances may seem daunting, but they don’t have to be insurmountable. This checklist is a great way to get started.

Select Advisers Familiar With the Issues

“Gay friendly” is no longer sufficient. Seek out advisers, attorneys and other professionals who fully understand the unique planning requirements for LGBT couples.

Execute a Healthcare Proxy and a Directive to Physicians

A new client recently told me a story about being unable to see a partner who was hospitalized, since only “immediate family members” were allowed in. A healthcare proxy designates an agent (e.g., your partner) to make medical decisions for you in the event of your incapacity. In addition, a living will outlines your wishes with regard to feeding and other end-of-life decisions.

Create Your Investment and Estate Plans—Together

When assessing your financial future, you and your partner should discuss financial values, priorities and goals. A plan can help with long-term financial goals, determining how to save for major purchases, and laying out your paths to retirement. It can also help you address those difficult “what if” questions.

Execute a Will

Careful estate planning for same-sex partners is a must. You should be specific, clear and precise in making your wishes known. In most states, if you die without a will, your estate is distributed to your legal heirs, commonly known as your “next of kin.” Lacking a will, the identity of your heirs is determined by law, not by you. A will and/or a trust specifying your intentions can help ensure your assets transfer to your partner if you so choose.

Be Precise With Beneficiary Designations

Instead of leaving it to state laws to identify your legal heirs, your will should list the identities of your beneficiaries by name. Many of your assets, such as life insurance, 401(k) plans and IRAs, are transferred outside the will and are not subject to probate. This is something same-sex couples should remember when naming beneficiaries on individual accounts and policies.

Make a Property Agreement

If you put your partner on the title, you may be making an irrevocable gift. Another approach to consider is creating a property-agreement order to address the possibilities of death or separation.

Make a “Living Together” Agreement

If you are sharing money and assets, financially supporting each other and incurring debt together, a “living together” agreement can state what property belongs to whom and how you wish to handle your assets while you live as a couple or if you should part.

Execute a Durable Power of Attorney

A power of attorney gives one person in the couple financial authority to act and sign on behalf of the other, and can be used to authorize your partner to make financial or business decisions if you become incapacitated.

Create a Joint-Custody Agreement

Consult your attorney about an arrangement that ensures each partner’s rights to seeing the child, continuing guardianship or custody, and ensuring that agreed-upon living arrangements are upheld in the event that one of you dies or you separate.

We’ll continue to discuss the unique financial needs of LGBT couples throughout the year in this column, but this checklist can be an invaluable first step.

Wells Fargo Advisors is not a tax or legal advisor.  Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, member SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer and separate nonbank affiliate of Wells Fargo & Company, No. 33 on the DiversityInc Top 50.

Trust services available through banking and trust affiliates in addition to nonaffiliated companies of Wells Fargo Advisors.

The post Domestic Partnership Financial Checklist appeared first on DiversityInc.