CAREER

HOME  l  ORGANIZATION  l  NEWS  l  INFO  l  RESOURCES  l  LINKS

ALGBTICAL
 

HOME

ORGANIZATION

NEWS

INFORMATION

RESOURCES

LINKS

INFO

Business
Perspective

Famous
LGBT People

LGBT History
Highlights

LGBT Activists
and Advocates

Homophobia and
Heterosexism

Domestic
Partners

Gay Marriage

Gays in the
Military

Political Notes

Travel and
Leisure

Pride Celebrations
 

LINKS

HRC Report:
State of the Workplace

HRC Info:
WorkLife

Pride Not
Prejudice:
Discrimination
in the
Workplace

Natl Gay & Lesbian
Chamber of Commerce

Gay Work

NY Times:
Building a Network
of Gay
Entrepreneurs

Start Out
Gay
Entrepreneurs

Equal Program at
Lucent Technologies

Go Gay

HRC Workplace Report:
BellSouth Profile

Idealist

Hire Diversity

NOGLSTP
 

LINKS

HRC Work Net

Lambda Legal
Employment Notes

Lambda Legal:
Be A Workplace Ally

Gay Realty
Network

Gay Financial
Network

Pro Gay Jobs

GLBT Career
Resources

Straight Jobs
Gay Lives

Lambda Legal

LGBT Financial

Pink Finance

Lambda Business

GAYS IN THE WORKPLACE
Top Gay-Friendly Companies
 

From Ramon Johnson

Do you work for a gay-friendly company?

We all grow up imagining the exciting careers will will have as adults. We find our interests, focusing on our happiness and paths to success. Often, our career choices require us to work for a large company and sometimes we end up there out of necessity.

We become so focused on our careers and making a living that we often don't anticipate discrimination towards gays in the workplace. We are suddenly faced with the difficult decision of coming out at work or revealing our sexual orientation to co-workers. We ponder over many questions: Should I come out? How will I be treated by my peers? Will I get passed up for a promotion because I am gay? Does my partner qualify for my benefits? Is there a gay organization at work?

To help assist us in finding a gay-friendly work environment with positive answers to many of these questions, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) evaluated the policies and practices of over 300 companies, scoring them for their "friendliness" toward gay, lesbian and bisexual employees and their partners.

What Was the Criteria?

Companies must be either a Fortune 500 company, One of the 200 largest privately held companies from Forbes Private 500, or other companies with at least 500 employees.

HRC doesn't evaluate universities, government employers, non-profits or companies with fewer than 500 employees.

How Were Companies Rated?

Companies were rated based on the following factors:

Have a written non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation in their employee handbook or manual.

Have a written non-discrimination policy covering gender identity and/or expression in their employee handbook or manual.

Offer health insurance coverage to employees' same-sex domestic partners.

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 and other resources; or have a firm-wide diversity council or working group whose mission specifically includes GLBT diversity.

Offer diversity training that includes sexual orientation and/or gender identity and expression in the workplace

Engage in respectful and appropriate marketing to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and/or provide support through their corporate foundation or otherwise to GLBT or HIV/AIDS-related organizations or events.

Engage in corporate action that would undermine the goal of equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The companies were rated on a scale from 0 to 100. Each factor was weighted equally with the exception of number 4, which gave only half credit to companies that had no GLBT resource group.

Which Companies Ranked the Highest?

The following companies received a score of 100 from HRC for their policies for gay, lesbian and bisexual employees and their partners.
 

LGBT CAREER PLANNING
Job Market & Workplace Resources

Organizations & Websites:

Human Rights Campaign

Download free copy: Corporate Equality Index

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force

Fighting to End Workplace Discrimination

GLBT Workplace

Download free copy: Frequently Asked Questions by Managers Regarding GLBT Workplace Issues (by Dave Hughes)

Out & Equal Workplace Advocates

Pro Gay Jobs

Resources for Job Seekers and Employers

Out for Work

Pride Not Prejudice: Discrimination in the Workplace

Workplace Discrimination: We Give a Damn
 

Books & Publications:

Gay Issues in the Workplace (Brian McNaught)

The Corporate Closet (James Woods & Jay Lucas)

100 Best Companies for Gays & Lesbians (Ed Mickens)
Straight Jobs, Gay Lives (Annette Friskopp & Sharon Silverstein)
Lavender Road to Success: Career Guide for the Gay Community (Kirk Snyder)

Gay Men, Straight Jobs (Dan Woog)

BELLSOUTH SUCCESS STORY
New Angle LGBT Program

BellSouth, headquartered in Atlanta, and maintaining a large regional office in Birmingham, gets high marks from organizations like HRC for their focus on diversity programs and their inclusive work environment that features a LGBT employee group.

BellSouth's LGBT employee group is called New ANGLE (New Associates Networking for Gay and Lesbian Equality).

Mr. Charlie Frew is BellSouth's Director of Diversity.  He heads up the New ANGLE program.

Email: Charlie.Frew@BELLSOUTH.COM

Mailing Address: 1155 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 8J09, Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone:  404-249-2900    or  404-874-5155
 

STATE OF THE WORKPLACE
HRC Report

While corporate America has demonstrated leadership on providing fair and equal treatment for LGBT employees, this report also highlights the significant work that is yet to be done. Despite overwhelming public support for employment non-discrimination for LGBT employees—87% in a recent Gallup poll— there is still no federal law mandating the basic standard of non-discrimination on the basis of either sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. In the absence of national, legal protections for LGBT employees, LGBT employees are forced to rely on an incomplete patchwork of state and local laws for protection from workplace discrimination. Workers in 34 states could be fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression at any time.

By enacting non-discrimination policies that explicitly protect LGBT employees on the job, some companies have attempted to fill the void left by this legislative inaction. An increasing number of companies have realized that providing equal benefits and protections for LGBT employees in the workplace is not only a sound business practice, but a requirement to recruit and retain the best employees possible.
 

Smart businesses also recognize GLBT consumers’ $610 billion in buying power and their high degree of brand loyalty to companies that treat their GLBT employees equally. In today’s business environment, diversity is considered a competitive advantage. Put simply, employer policies that are LGBT-inclusive are a smart business practice.

We look forward to the day when LGBT employees will have earned all the protections they deserve; the same day that this report will no longer be needed. Until then, each year we will work to highlight the inequities that exist for LGBT Americans in the workplace.

Sincerely,
Joe Solmonese / President, Human Rights Campaign
Wes Combs / Co-Chair, HRC Business Council
Emily Jones / Co-Chair, HRC Business Council

REPORT OVERVIEW

Marriage for same-sex couples is now a reality in the United States and it is likely here to stay, despite attempts in some quarters to turn back the forward momentum. Nonetheless, the legal environment is mixed — ranging from full marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts to discriminatory marriage laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting any recognition of same-sex relationships. While these external issues may not affect the ability of large employers to manage their own workplace policies to their best advantage, smaller businesses that do not have self-funded health insurance plans may be impacted.

In spite of the shifting legal landscape, employers retain a great deal of flexibility in the benefits they can offer to domestic partners. Additionally, current benefits research indicates that more employers than ever before offer a range of domestic partner benefits, from health insurance to family leave. Employers recognize the business value of workplace fairness — not only for their work forces and in the labor market, but also in the marketplace. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender consumers represent a market segment of more than $600 billion and growing. Employers are finding that fairness pays, and in many respects, employers, not elected officials, are leading the country tow a rd greater equality.

This report gives an overview of the developing law surrounding same-sex relationships and how it will affect workplace benefits and policies. The report also provides a snapshot of the progress made in 2004 in
banning anti-gay workplace discrimination and equalizing benefits policies at the state and local levels and
in the private sector.

2004 was a landmark year in terms of federal, state and local debate and activity around equality for LGBT people. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to grant marriage licenses for same-sex couples, implementing a Nov. 18, 2003, decision by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruling that denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry was unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, although federal legislators failed in their attempt to encode discrimination against same-sex couples in the U.S. Constitution, anti-LGBT advocacy groups were emboldened by their successes in amending the constitutions in 13 states during 2004 to purportedly ban marriage between same-sex couples and, in some cases, ban the rights associated with it to all unmarried couples — same- and opposite-sex.

Since then, governmental entities and individuals in four states have interpreted their state constitutional amendments to deny domestic partner benefits, such as health insurance coverage, to public employees. None of the state constitutional amendments have been interpreted to impact benefits offered in the private sector. Still, the U.S. legal and political landscapes on relationship recognition for LGBT families are varied. For example, employers in Massachusetts, Vermont and California will find that premiums paid for benefits offered to same-sex couples are not subject to state income tax, and are treated the same as those paid for opposite-sex spouses. The same is not true in any other state, or at the federal level. In addition, state constitutional amendments could diminish employers’ competitiveness compared to peers in neighboring states without laws that might restrict benefits available for public employees, impede efforts to attract and retain top-notch employees and complicate transfers of employees to states where they have no protection or legal recognition of their relationships and families.

Despite these obstacles, many employers — particularly large ones — have a great deal of flexibility in how they manage their own workplace benefits.

WORKPLACE BENEFITS: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND SPOUSAL EQUIVALENCY

The most successful employers recognize that their work force is the primary source of their sustained competitive advantage, and many consider domestic partner benefits to be an important component of their management practice. Recent reports by several human resource research firms underscore the point. For example, according to a 2004 report by Mellon Financial Corp.’s Human Resources and Investor Solutions group, approximately 31 percent of survey respondents said that they offer domestic partner health benefits, up from 10 percent in 1998. Of particular note, employers indicate that they are not merely
complying with state or local laws that mandate such benefits: 85 percent reported that they do not have employees in states or localities that would require them to offer domestic partner benefits. Similarly, in a 2005 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, employers cite recruitment, retention and fairness above local laws among the reasons they offer domestic partner benefits. According to this survey,
domestic partner coverage is no more expensive than for other dependents.

For many employees workplace benefits, such as health insurance and family leave, are not mere “extras” that round out a compensation package. Rather, they are essential to health, well-being and their ability to care for loved ones while remaining effective on the job. Certain benefits are regulated primarily by state law and others by federal law. Consequently, benefits administration can be complicated. It is important to note that with few notable exceptions, federal law provides regulatory “floors” with which employers must comply, but which they may exceed in the administration of benefits.

BEST PRACTICES

Since 2002, the HRC Corporate Equality Index has been tracking “spousal equivalency ”benefits. The annual survey of the Fortune 500 tracks whether companies offer equal benefits to employees’ same - s ex domestic partners or spouses in some of the following areas:

1. Bereavement leave
2. Family and medical leave
3. COBRA benefits continuation
4. Supplemental life insurance
5. Relocation assistance
6. Adoption assistance
7. Retiree medical coverage
8. Employer provided life insurance
9. Automatic pension benefits for employees’ same-sex partners in the event of an employee’s death (applies to defined benefit plans only)
10. Employee discounts

As of April 13, 2005, 132 employers offered spousal equivalency in all of these benefits, including 83 Fortune 500 companies.

WORKPLACE LAWS AND BENEFITS

Over the course of the past year, the legal and political environment regarding LGBT workplace equality has changed significantly. The good news is that more cities, counties and government entities offer health insurance coverage for employees’ same-sex partners. Additionally, private sector employers are standing firm in their commitment to equality in the workplace. For instance, Sprint and SBC Communications, both based in Kansas, announced their intention to continue to provide domestic partner benefits to their employees despite passage of a constitutional amendment purporting to ban marriage and other legal relationships for same-sex couples.

However, the threat to employees and their families who depend on their employers for domestic partner benefits is real. For instance, in March 2005, the New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division struck down the New York City equal benefits law that barred the city from doing business with companies that provide benefits for employees’ spouses but not for same-sex partners.  Additionally, discriminatory state constitutional amendments in Ohio and Michigan have been interpreted by the University of Toledo and the governor and attorney general of Michigan to indicate that they must rescind domestic partner benefits in the public sector. Officials at Columbia College in Missouri and Utah State University also decided against extending benefits to same-sex couples because they interpreted their states’ constitutional amendments as prohibiting them from doing so.

This is not the end of the story, however. Employers recognize that the benefits they can reap from fair workplace policies extend into the marketplace. According to marketing firm Witeck - Combs Communications and consumer-market researcher Packaged Facts (a division of MarketResearch.com), the total buying power of the U.S. gay, lesbian and bisexual adult population in 2005 is projected to be $610 billion. With almost 60 percent of LGBT consumers reporting that they “trust brands more if they are made by companies that have progressive policies toward gay and lesbian employees,” employers increasingly recognize a dual opportunity in implementing progressive workplace policies. At the same time, employers are beginning to realize that laws that limit their ability to implement effective, comprehensive and equal workplace policies and benefits are as bad for business as they are for society at large.

EMPLOYER-PROVIDED DOMESTIC PARTNER HEALTH BENEFITS

As of Dec. 31, 2004, the HRC Foundation had tracked a total of 8,250 private employers, state and local governments, government agencies, colleges and universities that provided health insurance coverage to employees’ domestic partners — an increase of 926 employers, or 13 percent, over 2003.

Also at the end of 2004, a total of 216 companies in the Fortune 500 — or 43 percent — provided domestic partner health benefits. A total of 17 Fortune 500 companies added the benefits in 2004, a 9 percent increase from 2003. Thirteen additional Fortune 500 companies announced that they would begin offering the benefits in 2005, and one said the benefits would begin in 2006, bringing the total number of Fortune companies that have announced or are already offering domestic partner benefits to 230 by March 1, 2005. That marks a tenfold increase in the number of Fortune companies that offer domestic partner health benefits since 1995, when only 21 did so.

As in previous years, the data suggest that the most successful businesses provide domestic partner health benefits. While 46 percent of Fortune 500 companies provide the benefits (as of March 1, 2005), 76 percent of the Fortune 50 do. Among colleges and universities, 74 percent of the 50 top national four-year colleges, according to U.S. News and World Report, provided domestic partner coverage. The overwhelming majority of employers that offer domestic partner health insurance — 95 percent of those tracked by the HRC Foundation — offer it to both same-sex and opposite-sex partners. This is partly because that’s what is re q u i red by equal benefits ordinances enacted. Equal benefits ordinances re q u i re employers doing business with a government entity to provide equal benefits to employees’ domestic partners.

EMPLOYER POLICIES COVERING SEXUAL ORIENTATION

The HRC Foundation tracked a total of 2,867 private employers, state and local governments, government agencies, colleges and universities that included sexual orientation in their organizations’ primary equal employment opportunity or non-discrimination policies as of Dec. 31, 2004. That represents a 4 percent increase from 2003.

At the end of 2004, a total of 410 companies in the Fortune 500 — or 82 percent — included sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies. Four additional Fortune 500 companies added the policy by March 1, 2005. The closer a company is to the top of the Fortune list, the more likely it is to have an inclusive policy. Forty-nine — or 98 percent — of the Fortune 50 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies. ExxonMobil Corp. is the only company in the Fortune 50 that does not.
 

A total of 551 colleges and universities had written non-discrimination policies containing sexual orientation at the end of 2004. Forty-nine of 50 top national four-year colleges and universities, according to U.S. News and World Report, include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies. The University of Notre Dame is the only school that does not.

LAWS COVERING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION

No federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. As of Dec. 31, 2004, 14 states and the District of Columbia had civil rights laws that protect all gay, lesbian and bisexual workers within their borders from discrimination. In early 2005, two states passed similar laws — Illinois and Maine — bringing the total to 16 covering sexual orientation, with six of these also including protections for transgender individuals. An additional 11 states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination against state employees, and three of these include protections for transgender state employees. One state — Louisiana — added such a policy in 2004. Over half of the states, therefore, provide some level of protection from job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Despite widespread support, the 108th U.S. Congress failed to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have outlawed job discrimination based on sexual orientation in all 50 states. HRC will continue to push for federal legislation outlawing job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression in subsequent sessions of Congress, and is actively involved in working to pass such legislation at the state level as well.

At the end of 2004, 173 states, cities, counties and government organizations prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in the private sector. A total of five local jurisdictions added such protections
in 2004.

CONCLUSIONS

The struggle for equality waged by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans and their allies attracted an unprecedented amount of the public’s attention in 2004. The focus, however, remained set on the legal battles for marriage in Massachusetts and against marriage for same-sex couples elsewhere, as voters in several states wrote discrimination into their state constitutions by prohibiting equal treatment of LGBT families. Largely overshadowed by these electoral and legal battles, the inexorable shift towards equitable treatment for LGBT employees in America’s workplaces continued unabated. The number of companies offering employer-provided domestic partnership benefits again rose steadily, as did the number of state and local jurisdictions offering the same to their public employees. Businesses continued to show government the way forward in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as the number of new jurisdictions guaranteeing non-discrimination was again outstripped by their corporate counterparts.
 

In light of the gradual, steady shifts in other areas, the rapid advances seen in transgender-inclusive workplace policies represent the most striking trend in 2004. In a year where only one state law and six municipal laws came into effect that require non-discrimination for transgender employees in the workplace, the number of companies guaranteeing the same for their workers nearly doubled. Businesses have realized that competing in an increasingly challenging marketplace requires the best workforce available, which is in turn only possible when they maximize their recruitment and retention of all workers — LGBT employees included. It is a lesson that government would do well to learn.
 

MORE COMPANY TRAINING PROGRAMS
Fostering Workplace Inclusiveness

By SARAH E. NEEDLEMAN / November 26, 2007

More Programs Move to Halt Bias Against Gays

Chubb & Other Employers Train Managers
on How To Foster Inclusiveness

Valorie Gilmore, a specialty-insurance manager at Chubb Corp., was meeting with a client two months ago when participants began discussing a local women's basketball team. One person blurted, "You mean the lady lesbians?" Ms. Gilmore recalls.
 

"Let's not go down that road," Ms. Gilmore quickly replied. She says she felt compelled to speak "to set the right example here at Chubb in the way we conduct business."

Ms. Gilmore later attended a training program for Chubb managers on dealing with bias against gays in the workplace and learned that she'd acted appropriately. "You want to redirect the conversation to make it clear you are uncomfortable with it," says Kevin Hannan, a senior performance specialist at the insurer who helped start and design the training.

Chubb is among a growing number of employers training managers on how to prevent workplace discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender employees. Other big companies that offer similar training include Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Merck & Co., Ernst & Young LLP, and Toronto-Dominion Bank. Such offerings are rare because "there is still a level of discomfort in talking about the subject," says John Peoples, a managing partner at Global Lead, a Cincinnati diversity-consulting firm.

Other employers include sexual-orientation issues in general training on inclusiveness, Mr. Peoples says. All told, 41% of 255 big companies surveyed by the Human Rights Campaign, a nonprofit advocacy group for gays in the workplace, offer some kind of training that touches on sexual orientation.

Diversity consultant Brian McNaught says many companies don't see a need for specific training because they have policies prohibiting discrimination against gays; some also offer medical and other benefits to the partners of gay employees. But, Mr. McNaught says, "You need more than policies. You need a culture that on a daily basis feels welcoming, and the only way you change a corporate culture is through education."

RAISING AWARENESS

Consultant Brian McNaught's tips for managing gay and transgender issues in the workplace:
 

• Know the company policy on discrimination.

• State clearly what's expected of each employee.

• Be aware this is about the company's values, not personal beliefs.

• Always assume that there's a gay or transgender person present.

• Avoidance isn't effective. Work to create a safe, productive office environment.

There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination against gays, though 20 states have some form of antidiscrimination law, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Earlier this month the U.S. House passed a bill that would prohibit employers from using an individual's sexual orientation as the basis for hiring, firing, promotion or compensation. The bill still must be considered by the Senate.
 

Mr. McNaught says workplace discrimination against gays is more subtle than in the past; there's little openly antigay graffiti, for example. More typical concerns these days might be an office environment where gay workers don't feel comfortable displaying a photo of their partners or are uneasy talking with colleagues about what they did over the weekend.

Chubb began offering two-hour training sessions in June to all managers. The sessions are led by two Chubb employees -- typically, one employee is gay, the other straight. Topics include language choices, such as what to call a gay person's significant other. ("Partner" is recommended.) Facilitators distribute handouts listing words associated with homosexuality, then offer definitions. They describe a transgender person as a man who identifies himself as a woman, or vice-versa.
 

The training is largely voluntary for now, although some leaders require managers who report to them to attend. Chubb's facilitators air a video of Mr. McNaught speaking about workplace treatment of gays. He notes that speakers can indicate whether they accept or dismiss gay workers with their tone, and encourages participants to consider the tone they strike when communicating with colleagues.
 

In another part of the session, Chubb participants are divided into groups to discuss case studies. In one example, a manager and three of his reports are waiting for an elevator. One worker asks if the others have seen a movie. Bob, who is gay, replies that he liked the film but his partner didn't. Later, the manager overhears the two other employees questioning "why Bob needs to advertise his private life at work."
 

Mr. Hannan praised one manager who suggested approaching the workers and saying, "I didn't see it that way." He also suggested asking the employees, "If Bob were heterosexual and talked about his wife, would you have the same reaction?"
 

The idea for sexual-orientation training at Chubb grew from a discussion among members of a company affinity group on how to create a more-welcoming office environment for gay employees. They proposed the idea to senior executives and won support from Chubb's chief diversity officer, Kathy Marvel. Organizers decided that, instead of hiring outside consultants to run the training, managers would relate better to hearing from fellow employees.

Theory & Practice is a weekly look at people and ideas influencing managers. Send comments to theorypractice@wsj.com. For an archive of past columns, visit CareerJournal.com/Columnists.

Write to Sarah E. Needleman at sarah.needleman@wsj.com

WORKPLACE INCLUSIVENESS
Welcoming Work Environment 

"Today's workforce is truly a mosaic of different races, ages, genders, ethnic groups, religions, and lifestyles. It is our job to ensure that disparate pieces of the mosaic fit together in a harmonious, coordinated way, maximally utilizing the talents and abilities of each employee. If skillfully managed, this diversity can bring a competitive advantage to an organization. If not, however, the bottom line can be negatively effected, and the work environment can become unwelcoming."

-ESTY, GRIFFIN & HIRSCH / Workplace Diversity

"The American business community understands that success -- in the present and the future -- lies in enabling a diverse workforce to serve a diverse marketplace. At this point in our nation's history, diversity in the workforce means that a growing proportion of the employee population is other than white, Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual, married men whose wives are fulltime homemakers. That other than includes not only white women and people of color but anyone whose lifestyle doesn't quite mirror the traditional family reflected in Leave It To Beaver."

-TED CHILDS / IBM Corporation

"In assessing workplace inclusiveness, companies should consider the following questions: Are your facilities physically accessible (ramps, elevators)? Are your printed materials available in alternative formats (braille, large print, tape)? Does promotional material represent and welcome all those served (people of color, gays, people with disabilities)? Is the language used in the office inclusive (Holidays instead of Christmas, partner instead of husband or wife)? Are staff openings and services advertised in publications targeted to diverse populations? Is gender equity discussed and practiced in your office? Are magazines and other materials in resource areas inclusive of various groups? Is there diversity among the hired staff? Has your company established relationships with organizations that can serve as resources in promoting diversity? Do employees confront jokes or slurs against any group or individual (women, blacks, gays, Jews, Hispanics, Polish)? Is diversity training provided for or required of employees in your office? Is the affirmative action statement clearly printed on all applications and other materials? Is every individual who works in, visits, or is served in your office treated with respect and their individual needs taken into account?"
 

-CHERYL HETHERINGTON (Celebrating Diversity: Working With Groups In The Workplace) and STUDENT DIVERSITY INSTITUTE (University of Minnesota)

HOME  l  ORGANIZATION  l  NEWS  l  INFO  l  RESOURCES  l  LINKS