Labor & Employment

Subscribe to Labor & Employment via RSS

In an era where TikTok stars outearn scores of CEOs of top earning publicly traded companies, executive compensation is no less important to the investing public or to companies striving to attract and retain top talent. Indeed, just this year the CEO of Starbucks received a 39% pay increase. Such soaring executive compensation has not escaped the notice of the SEC.

Another diversity-based derivative suit was dismissed this week by a federal district court, joining a list of decisions that have rejected similar shareholder allegations.

This most recent decision, from the District of Delaware, dismissed claims alleging Qualcomm Inc. had allowed unlawful and discriminatory practices to exist within its executive ranks.  Though the complaint was initially filed in the Southern District of California, Qualcomm’s Bylaws contain a forum-selection provision designating Delaware as the exclusive forum for derivative litigation, and thus the case was transferred to Delaware in March 2021.

After much debate, the SEC on Friday approved a Nasdaq proposal that will require listed companies to adopt several diversity-related measures.  Nasdaq first made this proposal, which requires listed companies to publicly disclose diversity information about their board members and either hire “diverse” members to their boards or explain why they do not in writing, last December.  Under SEC regulations, self-regulatory organizations such as Nasdaq must formally submit proposed rule changes to the Commission.  Nasdaq made some minor revisions to the proposed rule in February that granted smaller boards and newly listed companies some compliance leeway, but the proposal has otherwise survived scrutiny from conservatives, corporate interests, and popular newspaper editorial boards.

On July 30, 2021, L Brands, the parent company behind Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works, settled a rash of derivatives actions which had alleged “toxic” workplace conditions and “a culture of misogyny” at the company.  We previously detailed the allegations in this space as part of our ongoing review of shareholder attempts to hold companies liable for perceived diversity failures and workplace discrimination.  As we noted, a New York Times report detailing specific allegations of a former Chief Marketing Officer led to the filing of shareholder actions across the country, including in Ohio, Oregon, and Delaware.

The rash of shareholder derivative actions alleging violations of fiduciary duties tied to companies’ diversity measures are continuing to take a beating in the Northern District of California.  We previously posted about the dismissal on forum selection clause grounds of a derivative action brought in that court by a shareholder of The Gap, Inc. alleging the company’s directors and officers failed to instill meaningful diversity within its leadership.  We also reported on a similar suit brought against Facebook, which was dismissed because, among other reasons, the forum selection clause in Facebook’s certificate of incorporation provided that the exclusive forum for derivative actions was the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Fiscal year 2020 marked the ten-year anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act establishing the Securities and Exchange Commission’s whistleblower program. Since its inception through the end of FY2020, the SEC has awarded approximately $562 million to 106 individuals. Even a decade after it was created, the whistleblower program continues to break its own records; in 2020, the SEC issued several awards landing in the top 10 whistleblower awards of all time.

This week, another shareholder derivative suit was dismissed based on a forum selection clause contained in the company’s bylaws. In November 2020, a shareholder filed a derivative action alleging that directors and officers of The Gap, Inc., an apparel company, had failed to create meaningful diversity on the Board of Directors on within the company’s leadership roles. The plaintiff also alleged that Gap made false statements about the diversity of the company’s workforce, as well as its efforts to increase diversity among its employees.