Thread by @America1stLegal

/1🚨GLASS LEWIS EXPOSED🚨

One of the most powerful financial players in the world — advising funds collectively holding $40T — continually instructs corporations and investors to unlawfully discriminate against Americans.

THREAD:

/2 Glass Lewis is the world’s second-largest proxy advisory firm and, along with ISS, makes up a duopoly that controls a combined 91% of the market for proxy advisory services.

In its own materials, Glass Lewis makes clear that it provides voting advice based in no small part on how committed corporations are to woke, unlawful discrimination — even at the highest levels of corporations.

/3 In its Racial & Ethnic Diversity in the Boardroom report, Glass Lewis states that 64% of companies listed on the Nasdaq and S&P 500 do not list “relevant” metrics about directors’ race and ethnicity in their proxy statements. Even so, Americans should be concerned that more than a third of these companies are still beholden to the woke dogmas that demand discrimination in the name of diversity and equity.

/4 The Report references the “Rooney Rule” used by the NFL and other companies to “ensure minorities are considered” among candidates. AFL recently filed a complaint explaining how the “Rooney Rule” is unlawful on its face — the Civil Rights Act prohibits any employment decisions, including hiring and recruitment considerations, to be motivated by race, sex, religion, or national origin.

/5 Although the “Rooney Rule” and other “diversity considerations” are patently unlawful when acted upon, companies fearing cancellation by the woke mob continue to implement these discriminatory policies.

See below from Glass Lewis’ “Diversity Disclosure Assessments: 2022 Findings.”

/6 Over 90% of companies in the S&P 500 consider gender and race in their board of director candidates.

/7 Glass Lewis reveals that companies REJECT candidate recommendations for their boards of directors when the recommendations do not meet a certain “diversity criteria.”

While companies openly admit to having policies that mirror the “Rooney Rule,” others apparently use “informal policies” to discriminate — hiding the ball from those who would expose their discrimination. 

This is UNLAWFUL.

/8 Instead of hiring the best candidates to lead their multi-billion dollar companies, Biotech and financial companies — companies that Americans rely on for sound pharmaceuticals and investments — seem more concerned with diversity than success.

/9 A section of the Racial & Ethnic Diversity in the Boardroom report describes that the more diverse a company’s board of directors is, the more likely it is that it intentionally targets diversity — not merit.

/10 Companies discriminate by using policies to “refresh” their boards as “opportunities to diversify.”

This indicates, for example, that companies seeking to create a more diverse board of directors may consider only diverse candidates to fill roles vacated by non-minority board members.

/11 Many companies employ an “active approach featuring robust processes that reflect the emphasis they place on diversity.”

They will return candidate recommendations — generated by companies who specialize in creating those lists — when the recommendations are not sufficiently diverse. Many companies also consider a recruitment strategy that yields diverse candidates to be a “better result” than talent and optimizing the success of the company.

/12 To Glass Lewis, success is secondary when building a board of directors. It is, instead, more important to unlawfully consider “racially diverse candidates” and even consider candidates with NO EXPERIENCE in the professional corporate world to lead these major companies instead of established CEOs and CFOs.

Do you want professors and politicians, for example, leading the companies that determine the success of your 401(k)?

/13 Glass Lewis describes that, while many companies use race- and sex-based quotas to determine the success of their diversity initiatives, other companies refrain from doing so because of the “stigma” and shareholders are not interested.

That is likely because QUOTAS ARE ILLEGAL — according to the Civil Rights Act and EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas:

/14 To Glass Lewis, considering “diversity of thought” and “not wanting to sacrifice skillset for racial or ethnic considerations” is a “narrow approach” to diversity.

To Glass Lewis, and the New York City Comptroller, race and ethnicity are “skills” themselves.

/15 A report published by @ExposingBiden details how Glass Lewis has used its position of power to influence companies into adopting its woke agenda.

@ExposingBiden /16 The financial power and influence of Glass Lewis cannot be overstated.

@JudiciaryGOP is also investigating potential antitrust violations by Glass Lewis for colluding with institutional investors to “decarbonize” corporations and reduce emissions to net zero: