DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC. | Affirmative action risks report at DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.

Status
AGM passed
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
5
Resolution details
Company ticker
DKS
Lead filer
National Center for Public Policy
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI)
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Consumer Discretionary
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request the Board of Directors of DICK’S Sporting Goods, Inc. conduct an evaluation and issue a report within the next year, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, assessing how the Company’s affirmative action initiatives impact the Company’s risks related to actual and perceived discrimination on the basis of protected categories under civil rights law.
Supporting statement
In 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled in SFFA v. Harvard that discriminating on the basis of race in college admissions violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.1 As a result, the legality of corporate affirmative action programs was called into question2 and thirteen Attorneys General warned that SFFA implicated corporate affirmative action programs.3
In 2024, those implications widened when the Supreme Court ruled in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects against discriminatory job transfers.4 The ruling lowered the bar for employees to successfully sue their employers for discrimination,5 and is therefore likely to lead to an increase in discrimination claims.
Also in 2024, in American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund, the Eleventh Circuit held that offering grants only to minority entrepreneurs is substantially likely to violate the Civil Rights Act prohibition against race discrimination in private contracting.6
Finally, again in 2024, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the SEC exceeded its authority in approving Nasdaq’s diversity disclosure rule. Importantly, the court noted that the SEC was unable to argue that diversity is good for business because the totality of relevant studies cited by Nasdaq did not support such a claim.7
Around the same time as SFFA, Starbucks was successfully sued for “reverse discrimination” with damages of $25.6 million,8 and the risk of being sued for such discrimination is rising.9
Despite these obvious risks, DICK’S apparently continues to practice affirmative action as set forth in the following 2025 goals:
(1) “Spend $300,000,000 with diverse owned and operated businesses”10
(2) “Achieve 50% BIPOC and/or women for entry-level hires for technology”11
(3) “Increase BIPOC representation in leadership roles by 30%”12
Dividing employees and other stakeholders on the basis of race, and then allocating benefits on that basis, may be deemed immoral, illegal, and a breach of duty. With 50,000-plus employees,13 DICK’S likely has thousands of employees, job applicants, and other stakeholders who are potentially victims of this type of discrimination. If even only a fraction of them file suit, and only some of those prove successful, the cost to DICK’S could reach billions of dollars. Accordingly, it is imperative that DICK’S take action to assess the risks created by its affirmative action programs.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.