Susman Godfrey LLP - 1792 Exchange

Rating Overview

Susman Godfrey LLP is Medium Risk.

Susman Godfrey is Medium Risk. The company often yields to political activism in shaping corporate governance, potentially alienating consumers, dividing employees, and harming shareholders. The company implements race and identity-based policies that replace merit, excellence, and integrity with preferential treatment and outcomes. The company occasionally embraces corporate initiatives that redirect its central focus from business goals to partisan policies and divisive issues at times. This approach fails to safeguard free exercise, free speech, and free enterprise.

Rating Criteria

Corporate Weaponization Risk Levels
Criteria	Risk Level
Cancellations	Lower Risk
Discriminatory Philanthropy	No Data
Employment Protection	High Risk

Corporate Weaponization ⓘ

Corporate Governance and Public Policy Risk Levels
Criteria	Risk Level
Advocacy Bias	Medium Risk
Funding	High Risk
Political Actions	High Risk

Corporate Governance and Public Policy ⓘ

Rating Criteria Detail

Criteria Risk Level Rationale

Corporate Weaponization

Criteria:

Has canceled customers, suppliers, or vendors due to their political views or religious beliefs OR corporately boycotts, divests, or sanctions regions, people groups, or industries.

Risk Level:

Lower

Rationale:

Susman Godfrey has not publicly canceled customers, suppliers, or vendors based on political views or religious beliefs (1).

Criteria:

Charitable giving (including employee matching programs) policies or practices discriminate against charitable organizations based on views or religious beliefs.

Risk Level:

N/A

Rationale:

Susman Godfrey does not publish charitable giving guidelines (1).

Criteria:

Employment policies fail to protect against viewpoint or other discrimination and/or are ideological in nature.

Risk Level:

High

Rationale:

Susman Godfrey received a letter from the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAFER), demanding its diversity fellowship stop using race as a determining factor of who qualifies for the program. AAFER did not file a lawsuit because the firm made “substantial changes” to its fellowship (1)(2)(3)(4). The company offered systemic racism workshops and seminars for its employees (5). Susman Godfrey does not provide viewpoint protections for its employees (6).

Corporate Governance and Public Policy

Criteria:

Uses corporate reputation to support causes, organizations, or policies hostile to freedom of expression.

Risk Level:

Medium

Rationale:

Susman Godfrey supports DEI within its business practices, hosting a Diversity Committee (1). The company supports DEI within its business practices. From its Diversity webpage: “Susman Godfrey is committed to growing diversity among its trial lawyers and in the legal profession. This commitment is one of the firm’s core values and is essential to maintaining our position as the nation’s premier litigation firm” (2). In the wake of George Floyd’s death, Susman Godfrey published a statement about systemic racism (3). Otherwise, the company has not supported ideological causes or policies (4).

Criteria:

Uses corporate funds to advance ideological causes, organizations, or policies hostile to freedom of expression.

Risk Level:

High

Rationale:

Susman Godfrey provides a benefits package for employees that covers travel/lodging costs for an abortion (1). In 2020, the company pledged to match employee donations to organizations focused on racial justice. The firm also dedicated 100% of its charitable contributions toward racial justice organizations, including the Equal Justice Initiative and the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University (2)(3). Otherwise, there are no publicly known cases of Susman Godfrey using corporate funds to advance ideological causes, organizations, or policies (4).

Criteria:

Uses corporate political actions and/or financial contributions for ideological, non-business purposes.

Risk Level:

High

Rationale:

Susman Godfrey is a partner of the Center for Reproductive Rights, building case law, advocating before policy makers, and engaging in litigation to challenge bans and restrictions on access to abortion (1). The company does not operate a PAC or engage in lobbying at this time (2)(3)(4).