Like Jason Pye, I am somewhat confused as to why 30 Senate Republicans voted against this amendment to a military funding bill offered by Minnesota Senator Al Franken:
[The Amendment] would have cutoff government funds for contractors that prevent, in whatever way, their employees from filing sexual harassment lawsuits. The reasoning behind the amendment can be traced to the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, who was brutally raped by co-workers and locked in a container under armed guard on order of her employer, KBR.
The Heritage Foundation argued against the amendment, claiming that it was a benefit mainly to trial lawyers, and that arbitration is the better alternative. What Heritage failed to note, though, is that Ms. Jones was required under her contract to go through arbitration and it did her no good at all:
Jones says she identified one of the men who attacked her after he confessed, but that Halliburton/KBR prevented her from taking legal action against him or the company by pointing to a clause in her contract requiring disputes to go to arbitration.
She told a Senate committee: “I had no idea that the clause was part of the contract, what the clause actually meant, or that I would eventually end up in this horrible situation.”
Her lawyer, Todd Kerry, said that by forcing earlier assault cases to arbitration, Halliburton and other defence firms had created a climate in which some workers came to believe they could get away with sexual assaults and other crimes.
“I’ve received upwards of 40 calls to my office [about assault cases] in the past two years. A good number had been disposed of under arbitration,” he said.”Had there been public scrutiny to prevent such things happening and these cases taken to court, they might not have been repeated. Instead one of the men who raped Jamie was so confident that nothing would happen that he was lying in bed next to her the morning after.”
(…)
Other women have come forward to accuse the firms of not taking assault allegations seriously.
Mary Beth Kineston, who drove lorries in Iraq and survived a bloody ambush, has alleged that she was sacked after complaining of sexual assaults by several fellow workers.
“At least if you got in trouble on a convoy, you could radio the army and they would come and help you out. But when I complained to KBR, they didn’t do anything. I still have nightmares. They changed my life forever, and they got away with it,” she told the New York Times last year.
Linda Lindsey, who worked for KBR in Iraq for three years, has said that male supervisors regularly offered promotions and other benefits in exchange for sex. Lindsey said she filed complaints but they that were never acted on.Last month Jones won a court ruling against Halliburton and KBR that the arbitration clause in her contract did not prevent them from being sued. But the legal battle to get the case even heard is far from over. “Four years to fight to get in court is not a day in court,” she said.
Rather than dealing with clear cases of sexual assault openly, it seems pretty clear that the Halliburton/KBR arbitration policy actually swept them under the rug and created a climate where men believed that they could get away with making unwanted sexual advances toward their female co-workers. Arguably then, the arbitration policy made Jones’s rape inevitable.
What’s also clear is that if KBR knew stuff like this was going on and did nothing to put a stop to it, they should be held responsible for it. Brushing something like this off as something from the “trial lawyer’s lobby” is dishonest, and the Republicans who voted against this are essentially condoning rape.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
How can you possibly square this with your claim to be a Libertarian, Doug? I don’t disagree with your suggested outcome — this is despicable — but the freedom to contract is a fundamental tenet of Libertarian thought. And the freedom to contract is the freedom to enter into foolish contracts, including one as foolish as this.
If that freedom is not virtually absolute, then — like the old lawyer’s joke with the punch line “We’ve already established that; now, we’re dickering over price” — you’re simply a believer in big, paternalistic government.
October 18th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Your description of the amendment speaks of sexual harassment lawsuits. Rape is very different from sexual harassment and is covered under totally separate laws.
October 18th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Read the bill. The company can maintain lucrative contracts by simply not requiring arbitration agreements IN THE FUTURE. The bill does nothing to punish this company or anyone involved in the rapes.
Arbitration is only for civil cases, it can not be used for criminal cases. In this case, the victim is filing for damages. When she wins, no one will go to jail. Rape is criminal, destruction of evidence is criminal. People should go to jail for these despicable criminal actions!
This bill does nothing to help past or future victims. This despicable company is allowing/condoning outrageous CRIMINAL activities but the bill does nothing to solve that. Arbitration or lack of arbitration can not be used in criminal cases.
Congress should 1)launch a full investigation of CRIMINAL activities and 2)file full criminal charges against everyone who was involved and against the management who allowed it. 3)permanently deprive this despicable company of any government funds
I hope the victims get a HUGE punitive settlement against the company and any persons who had anything to do with the rapes/cover up/destruction of evidence!
Arbitration is cheaper and much quicker than civil court. In my experience, arbitration is much more fair than civil court.
The bill as passed, is simply a make work bill for trial attorneys.
October 18th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Uh, that contract needs to be closely examined, because arbitration usually applies to civil disputes (like SH), not criminal activity like sexual assault. KBR cannot claim an arbitration route where a CRIME is concerned. If anything, the arbitration here is criminal conspiracy to cover up a crime and KBR is an accessory after the fact.
This is why you ALWAYS sign contracts with your name, followed by “All Rights Reserved”. The freedom to contract does not give any party to the contract the right to breach it by criminal activity.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Yes, but of KBR was covering up the sexual assaults, it leads to civil claims that Jones may have against them, which her employment contract was essentially forcing her to waive.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
James,
Do you believe that the terms of that employment contract were negotiable, including the arbitration clauses ? I’m betting not.
And if KBR was covering up for criminal activity, they deserve to be dragged into court
October 18th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
James,
Also, if KBR does business with the government they really don’t have any place to argue when the government seeks to dictate how they do business, do they ?
October 18th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Of course, they were negotiable: the victim had the option to walk away. More likely, she simply saw dollar signs, and didn’t even bother to read the contract. But is that a valid excuse? A true libertarian would say “No.”
Of course, a faux libertarian will probably offer excuses about “unequal bargaining power,” and the like, all as an excuse for bigger and intrusive government. Probably couched in fraudulent terms, of course.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
James,
I’ll bet she also didn’t forsee working for a company that looked the other way while women were raped by men who worked for them
October 18th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I probably agree with that. Indeed, it’s entirely probable.
On the other hand, my guess is that the company didn’t foresee having employees who rape other employees.