Raphael Stevens

The Walt Disney Company is now publicly opposing Florida’s controversial “Don’t Say Gay” bill.
CEO Bob Chapek said he will meet with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Disney will donate $5 million to organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, that work to protect LGTBQ+ rights.
Chapek acknowledged that the company’s original approach “didn’t get the job done.”

Bob Chapek, Disney
Jeff Gritchen | MediaNews Group | Orange County Register via Getty Images

The Walt Disney Company is now publicly opposing Florida’s controversial “Don’t Say Gay” bill.
On Wednesday, CEO Bob Chapek addressed the company’s stance on the bill and acknowledged that its original approach “didn’t get the job done.”

Chapek told shareholders that he will meet with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Disney will donate $5 million to organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, that work to protect LGTBQ+ rights.
DeSantis’ office confirmed that Chapek had called but said no meeting had been scheduled yet, according to a statement provided to CNBC.
“The governor’s position has not changed,” the statement read. “Disney is known as a family-friendly company that creates wholesome entertainment for kids. The same Florida parents who take their families to Disney also support parental rights in education, because they do not want their young children exposed to inappropriate content about sex and gender theory at school.”
Disney faced pressure for not opposing the bill publicly, particularly after it was revealed that the company provided financial support for some of the bill’s backers in the state legislature.
“I know that many are upset that we did not speak out against the bill,” Chapek said during the company’s annual shareholder meeting. “We were opposed to the bill from the outset, but we chose not to take a public position on it because we thought we could be more effective working behind the scenes, engaging directly with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.”

“We were hopeful that our long-standing relationships with those lawmakers would enable use to achieve a better outcome, but despite weeks of effort we were ultimately unsuccessful,” he said.

Disney has made diversity and inclusion a major part of its corporate policies and storytelling across theme parks, movies and TV shows.
Disney has already begun to reimagine several iconic theme park attractions, including its Jungle Cruise ride, and is transitioning Splash Mountain into a new adventure ride featuring Princess Tiana, the company’s first Black princess, and other characters from “The Princess and the Frog.”
The company has also made its dress code more gender-inclusive last year, allowing for more varied hairstyles, jewelry and nail styles, as well as allowing cast members to show off their tattoos, something that was not permitted previously.
Florida passed its “Don’t Say Gay” bill earlier this week, which forbids instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools for kindergarten through third grade.
“Disney is a family-friendly company that creates wholesome entertainment for kids,” said the statement from DeSantis’ office. “The same Florida parents who take their families to Disney also support parental rights in education, because they do not want their young children exposed to inappropriate content about sex and gender theory at school.”
Chapek, meanwhile, said Disney is reassessing its approach to advocacy, including its political giving in Florida.
“I called Gov. DeSantis this morning to express our disappointment and concern that if legislation becomes law it could be used to unfairly target gay, lesbian, nonbinary and transgender kids and families,” Chapek said. “The governor heard our concerns and agreed to meet with me and LGBTQ+ members of our senior team in Florida to discuss ways to address that.
“I understand our original approach no matter how well-intended didn’t quite get the job done,” he added. “We are committed to support the community going forward.”

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Impossible Foods is suing Motif FoodWorks for patent infringement.
In its complaint, Impossible claims that Motif’s Hemami technology infringes on its patent for a beef replica that contains heme.
Along with Beyond Meat, Impossible has helped rejuvenate the market for vegetarian burgers, and a host of other companies have jumped on the trend.

A customer picks up a package of Impossible Burger plant based meat during the Impossible Foods Inc. grocery store product launch at Gelson’s Markets in Los Angeles, California, U.S., on Friday, Sept. 20, 2019.
Patrick T. Fallon | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Impossible Foods is suing Motif FoodWorks for patent infringement, claiming that the start-up’s beef alternative that uses heme technology that too closely imitates its own version.
Both companies are privately owned, although Impossible is much larger, with a valuation of $9.5 billion.

Impossible’s beef and pork substitutes use soy leghemoglobin, which is produced from genetically modified yeast, to imitate the taste and aroma of real meat. Along with Beyond Meat, Impossible has helped rejuvenate the market for vegetarian burgers. Several other companies have jumped on the trend, ranging from industry giants to small start-ups.
Motif has raised $343.5 million from investors such as Bill Gates and was valued at $1.23 billion last year, according to Pitchbook. It was spun out of biotech start-up Ginkgo Bioworks. When Motif launched in 2019, Ginkgo co-founder and CEO Jason Kelly told CNBC that Impossible’s success inspired the formation of Motif, which develops key ingredients for making plant-based proteins and leaves the rest to food companies.
In December, Motif announced that its first new food technology Hemami would be commercially available to large-scale customers. The Food and Drug Administration had deemed the ingredient as “generally recognized as safe.”
In its complaint filed in federal court in Delaware on Wednesday, Impossible alleges that Motif’s Hemami infringes on its patent for a beef replica using heme as an ingredient. Motif’s version uses bovine myoglobin as its heme source and follows a similar process to create the ingredient, which can then be used in beef substitutes, according to court filings.
According to Impossible, its patent covers the invention of a beef substitute that uses a muscle replica including a heme-containing protein, at least one sugar compound and one sulfur compound. It also protects against the invention of a meat alternative that mimics meat through a fat tissue replica that uses at least one plant oil and a denatured plant protein.

“We applaud other companies’ efforts to develop compelling plant-based products, but we do not tolerate attempts to undermine our brand or products through the deliberate and unauthorized infringement of our intellectual property,” Impossible said in a statement to CNBC. 
In a statement to CNBC, a Motif spokesperson said the company intends to contest the allegations “vigorously.”
“This complaint is not supported by facts or the law and is nothing more than a baseless attempt by Impossible Foods to stifle competition, limit consumer choice, and impede Motif, a new and innovative company with significant business momentum,” the spokesperson said in the statement.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Adidas has not reached a decision on when it will restart Russian business operations, CEO Kasper Rorsted told CNBC.
“We will deal with the situation as the world moves on, but right now we’re trying to deal with that situation immediately and in the right way,” Rorsted said
Adidas reported a rosy 2022 outlook on Wednesday, forecasting a 11% to 13% increase in sales, which takes into account business risks in Russia and Ukraine.

Adidas CEO Kasper Rorsted told CNBC on Wednesday that it’s too soon to know when the company will restart business operations in Russia.
“I think this is premature. The war has been going on for two weeks, and at this stage we’re taking the right decision at this moment. … I think it’s very difficult to make any dogmatic decision at this stage,” Rorsted said in an interview that aired on “Closing Bell.”

“We will deal with the situation as the world moves on, but right now we’re trying to deal with that situation immediately and in the right way,” he added.
The German sportswear company said earlier this week it is shuttering its Russian stores and pausing online sales in response to Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Reuters reported Adidas operates about 500 stores in Russia. The company also suspended its partnership with the Russian Football Union on March 1.
Adidas is among the hundreds of companies that have halted or curtailed Russian business operations in recent days, including Starbucks, McDonald’s and Apple.
The company reported a rosy 2022 outlook on Wednesday, forecasting a 11% to 13% increase in currency-neutral sales, which takes into account business risks in Russia and Ukraine. Rorsted said he’s focusing on supporting Ukraine while achieving company growth.
“I don’t mean to sound cynical, but it’s getting the balance between the two right because Russia is about 2% of our revenue, and we still need to take care of that, and also make sure that we further develop the 98% of the revenue, which is the global revenue,” he said.
Rorsted said Adidas has thousands of employees in Russia and it’s continuing to pay them. “But it’s also important that we look upon it in a greater context. We need to protect our employees and mitigate the situation through donations and emergency help to the entire region, and particularly our employees in Ukraine,” he said.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

The Biden administration is restoring California’s authority to set its own rules on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, pickups and SUVs.
The move rolls back a Trump-era decision and puts California at the forefront of combatting climate change in the U.S.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have adopted California’s tighter standards.

Cars make their way toward downtown L.A. during the morning commute on April 22, 2021 in Los Angeles, California.
Mario Tama | Getty Images

The Biden administration is restoring California’s authority to set its own rules on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, pickups and SUVs, a move that rolls back a Trump-era decision and puts California at the forefront of combatting climate change in the U.S.
The decision reinstates a Clean Air Act waiver that allows California to adopt stronger fuel economy standards than those of the federal government and set the precedent for the rest of the country on how to mitigate vehicle emissions. The state’s past ability to control vehicle emissions led to some innovative strategies in the auto industry, such as catalytic converters, which convert toxic gases and pollutants in exhaust gas into less-toxic pollutants, as well as “check engine” lights.

The transportation sector is a major source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., representing 29% of the country’s emissions. California, the country’s most populous state, is home to a slew of congested freeways that spew carbon pollution into the atmosphere and create smog-filled skies over cities such as Los Angeles.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have adopted California’s tighter standards. The California Air Resources Board will determine how to enforce them.
Under the Clean Air Act, the state has the ability to receive permission from the federal government to set its own rules on tailpipe standards that help lower emissions from gas-powered vehicles. California established the first tailpipe emissions standards in the country in 1966.
The Trump administration in 2019 revoked California’s authority to regulate its own air quality, arguing that it wouldn’t allow “political agendas in a single state” to set national policy. That decision was part of a broader rollback of Obama-era vehicle emissions standards and climate change regulations.
“Today we proudly reaffirm California’s longstanding authority to lead in addressing pollution from cars and trucks,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement on Wednesday. “Our partnership with states to confront the climate crisis has never been more important.”

“With today’s action, we reinstate an approach that for years has helped advance clean technologies and cut air pollution for people not just in California, but for the U.S. as a whole,” Regan said.

More from CNBC Climate:

“When you clear a traffic jam, the first thing you do is take your foot off the brake,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., who is also the chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. “That’s exactly what the Biden administration is doing by reinstating California’s long-standing authority under the Clean Air Act to set tailpipe standards.”
Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Frank Pallone said in a statement that the Biden administration’s decision reverses one of Trump’s “most absurd and indefensible actions.”
“Today’s action is a win for everyone since the waiver helps states improve air quality for communities across the country, spurs American innovation of clean vehicle technology, and ensures that consumers have access to the most advanced and efficient vehicles possible,” Pallone said.
The Biden administration’s decision will also help California move toward its goal of phasing out all new gas-powered passenger cars and trucks by 2035.
Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the pledge in 2020, saying it would cut the state’s emissions by 35%. California also has rules requiring a certain percentage of new vehicle sales to be electric or zero-emissions.
“I thank the Biden Administration for righting the reckless wrongs of the Trump administration and recognizing our decades-old authority to protect Californians and our planet,” Newsom said in a statement.
Newsom said the decision also “comes at a pivotal moment underscoring the need to end our reliance on fossil fuels.”
Environmental groups on Wednesday strongly praised the EPA’s decision to reinstate the Clean Air Act waiver.
Michelle Robinson, director of the Clean Transportation Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Trump’s reversal relied on a “deeply flawed understanding of the law and thwarted the ability of states to take important steps toward limiting carbon emissions.”
“Today’s reinstatement of the waiver is an important milestone in the fight to preserve critical environmental regulations undone by the Trump administration,” Robinson said.
Luke Tonachel, director for clean vehicles and fuels at Natural Resources Defense Council, said that states have led the movement to clean up tailpipe pollution and move the country towards cleaner vehicles.
“While the previous administration tried to undermine this authority, the law clearly gives California and other states the ability to adopt standards to curb the pollution affecting the health of their citizens,” Tonachel said. “Reaffirming this legal authority will protect public health and help address the climate crisis.”

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

A federal judge ordered Walmart to rehire Marlo Spaeth, an employee with Down syndrome who was abruptly fired after working in a Wisconsin Supercenter for nearly 16 years.
The judge, however, denied the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s request for tighter scrutiny of Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer.
The judge’s ruling can be appealed by both sides.

Exterior view of a Walmart store on August 23, 2020 in North Bergen, New Jersey. Walmart saw its profits jump in latest quarter as e-commerce sales surged during the coronavirus pandemic.
VIEW press | Corbis News | Getty Images

A federal judge has ordered Walmart to immediately rehire a woman with Down syndrome and give her more than $50,000 in back pay after she prevailed in a disability discrimination lawsuit related to her firing from a Wisconsin store.
But the judge denied a request to force Walmart to take other actions for the next five years in light of how it treated the woman, Marlo Spaeth.

Walmart told CNBC on Wednesday that it would comply with the order to give Spaeth her job back.
But a spokesman said the company has not decided whether to appeal the ruling on back pay, along with $300,000 in jury damages.
“We take supporting all our associates seriously and routinely accommodate thousands with disabilities every year,” Walmart said.
The judge’s order is the latest development in a more than five-year court battle between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer. The federal agency sued Walmart on Spaeth’s behalf, after the retailer refused to accommodate her disability and fired her after nearly 16 years of working at one of its Supercenters.

Judge rejects additional steps

As part of the lawsuit, the EEOC had asked Judge William Griesbach to require the big-box retailer to add training for managers about the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The EEOC also had wanted Walmart to notify all employees about a jury’s verdict in Spaeth’s favor, their legal rights and their ability to contact the federal agency to report violations.
The EEOC had cited similar discrimination lawsuits against Walmart, arguing that the company’s actions against Spaeth are part of a pattern.
Griesbach in his Feb. 22 ruling denying the requests said that most of the EEOC’s requests are “directives that Walmart obey the law.”
The judge wrote: “The substantial verdict against Walmart and the publicity it generated serve as strong deterrents against any repeat of the conduct at issue in this case.”
Griesbach also said it will “create a strong incentive for Walmart to ensure that requests for reasonable accommodations are adequately addressed without court oversight of Walmart’s administration and enforcement of its policies and procedures.”
An EEOC attorney, Justin Mulaire, declined to say whether the agency will appeal Griesbach’s refusal to force Walmart to take additional steps the agency wanted.
The ruling came about seven months after a Wisconsin federal court jury found that Walmart violated the law when it changed Spaeth’s working hours and refused to accommodate her disability.
The jury awarded Spaeth more than $125 million in damages for the disability discrimination lawsuit — one of the highest in the federal agency’s history for a single victim.
But that award was immediately reduced by the judge to a statutory maximum of $300,000.
In recent weeks, the EEOC and Walmart have argued in court papers over how to calculate the amount of back pay Spaeth would receive to comply with the judge’s order.
The two parties still disagree on the amount Walmart must pay Spaeth to offset the tax liability she will incur from the money she is due to receive.

‘Nothing short of traumatic’

For more than a decade, Spaeth had tidied store aisles, folded towels and helped customers at the Walmart store in Manitowoc, a city on the shore of Lake Michigan. During that time she regularly received positive performance reviews and raises.
Her work hours were changed in 2014 when the store began using a computerized scheduling system designed to match staffing levels with customer traffic, court records show.
Spaeth struggled to adapt to the new hours and worried that she would miss the bus or her dinnertime. That led to her sometimes leaving early.
Spaeth and her sister, Amy Jo Stevenson, repeatedly asked for her schedule to be changed back.
But Walmart refused, and ultimately fired Spaeth.
Stevenson said in a CNBC interview in July that when her sister lost her job, she lost her sense of purpose. She wouldn’t come to the phone or pose for a photo. She buried her head in her hands when a Walmart commercial came on TV.
“It was nothing short of traumatic,” Stevenson said in the interview. “It was hard, very difficult to watch.”
She filed a complaint with the EEOC, which later led to the lawsuit.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Three more Starbucks locations in the Buffalo, New York, area have voted in support of unionizing, dealing yet another blow to the coffee giant.
In total, six Starbucks restaurants have voted to unionize in recent months, and more than 100 other locations are waiting to cast their ballots.
Starbucks operates nearly 9,000 locations in the U.S.

The Starbucks Workers United hub in Buffalo on November 16, 2021.
Libby March | The Washington Post | Getty Images

Three more Starbucks locations in the Buffalo, New York, area have voted in support of unionizing, dealing yet another blow to the coffee giant as more of its workers organize.
The Walden and Anderson, Sheridan and Bailey and Depew company-owned cafes join two other Buffalo-area locations and one in Mesa, Arizona, in deciding to form a union under Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union. Only one location, also in the Buffalo area, has voted against unionizing, giving the union a win rate of 85%.

The initial Buffalo victories for the union have galvanized other locations nationwide to organize. In the last month alone, the number of stores filing petitions with the National Labor Relations Board for union elections has doubled. To date, more than 100 company-owned Starbucks cafes have filed for union elections, all within the last six months.
Still, it’s a small fraction of the company’s overall footprint. Starbucks operates nearly 9,000 locations in the U.S.
The union’s latest round of victories in Buffalo was tight. The Walden and Anderson location voted eight to seven to unionize, and the other two voting locations both voted 15 to 12 in favor of a union.
The National Labor Relations Board’s regional director will now have to certify the ballots, a process that could take up to a week. Then the union faces its next challenge: negotiating a contract with Starbucks. Labor laws don’t require that the employer and union reach a collective bargaining agreement, and contract discussions can drag on for years.
After Starbucks workers at its Elmwood location in Buffalo won the first union for employees of a company-owned location, Starbucks’ North American head Rossann Williams wrote a letter to all U.S. baristas, saying the company would bargain “in good faith.”

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More