30 brave Republican Senators stand by their conservative principles...

[ElNono]

How ever all this ends up, I believe it's wrong to allow contracts to shield criminal activity.

I don't think you'll find a court that will think such contract is enforceable.

Seems to me, she should sue using RICO? Is that plausible? After-all, there is complicity because of the attempted cover-up.

I'm sure her lawyer will shoot all the darts together and see what sticks.

[elbamba]

And override it to an extreme.

I agree similar legislation needs to be passed, but not this. Only legislation that goes as far as saying criminal activity cannot be covered under arbitration.

On top of that, it needs to be US law, not just for DoD contractors.

I don't think anyone expects that they will be the victim of a violent crime, to be handled by arbitration, in the work place.

That's her limits now without some good legal maneuvering. Still, if such arbitration is allowed for such activities, what stops an unscrupulous employer from engaging in illegal forced sexual services of it's employees?

There needs to be a limit to what arbitration can cover. I just say this legislation goes way to far.

"crimes" are not and never will be handled by an arbitrator. Nor can a company shield itself from criminal prosecution through an arbitration clause.

It is important that you and everyone else realizes that arbitration is not done for criminal activity. That is left to a city, county, state, or U.S. attorneys. THese people handle the criminal aspect.

The company's ability to force arbitration is only for civil matters. In this case, she wants to be able to sue the company for money damages. She is not suing the company for rape, the company did not rape her.

[elbamba]

The problem is that 'the law' you mention above is 'contract law' and that is not the same everywhere.
There's plenty of contracts that establish arbitration clauses, mandatory or not, that are simply declared unconscionable or unenforceable by certain states all the time.
At this point in time, arbitration is not even cheaper than litigation in a lot of cases, and it's highly debatable wether giving up the protection of the court is always desirable.

I respectfully disagree. Most courts do not rule out arbitration clauses, at least in the U.S. and in the individual states. In fact, quite the opposite, most courts will find them valid because it clears their dockets and prevents the obvious reverseable error on appeal by invalidating a valid arbitration clause.

The only way an arbitration clause will be thrown out on a contract such as this, is if it does not specify what is to be arbitrated. I do not think this is the case here. I just handled a case where I got an employee out of a major piece of litigation in the U.S. District COurt of Kansas under an arbitration clause. There were about 9 parties involved and the judge stayed all proceedings for the arbitration clause that my client had with one of the plaintiffs. The Plaintiff dropped my client with prejudice because that clause held up all of their litigation.

[ElNono]

I respectfully disagree. Most courts do not rule out arbitration clauses, at least in the U.S. and in the individual states. In fact, quite the opposite, most courts will find them valid because it clears their dockets and prevents the obvious reverseable error on appeal by invalidating a valid arbitration clause.

I don't disagree that courts actually like arbitration, for a number of different reasons, and they've pushed the FAA extensively on Commercial/Contract, Labor and Securities arbitration. Even non-binding Judicial arbitrations lately.

Then again, there are some public interest ones where they did not (Douglas v. Talk America, 495 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2007), Harris v. Blockbuster Inc., No. 3:09-cv-217-M (N.D. Tex. April 15, 2009))

But more importantly, I can't find a single one where a criminal charge was levied and arbitration agreement prevailed.

The only way an arbitration clause will be thrown out on a contract such as this, is if it does not specify what is to be arbitrated. I do not think this is the case here. I just handled a case where I got an employee out of a major piece of litigation in the U.S. District COurt of Kansas under an arbitration clause. There were about 9 parties involved and the judge stayed all proceedings for the arbitration clause that my client had with one of the plaintiffs. The Plaintiff dropped my client with prejudice because that clause held up all of their litigation.

My point is that contract law does not supersede criminal law. Otherwise, things like assisted suicide would be entirely legal by means of a waiver of rights and liability on a contract. Heck, even abortion!

[LnGrrrR]

Think of the ramifications of imposing such requirements on USA corporations, but not foreign ones. How many USA jobs will be lost? Think about the DoD not being able to sign contracts with defense companies who employ union labor. That's arbitration, right?

Why do you think this would only affect US corporations? The amendment would prevent the government from hiring ANY corporation that would allow arbitration for such items as sexual harassment, etc etc.

I've not seen anything saying that foreign companies would be exempt from these federal fund disbursement rules.

[LnGrrrR]

WC,

I think you and I have the same opinion on this, for the most part. I would agree with your law that arbitration can't cover criminal acts, though it seems obvious. I'm fine with arbitration for sexual harassment and things of that nature that aren't criminal in nature.

Elbamba,

Forgive my ignorance, but is the arbitration amount forced to be private? For instance, does she already know the amount provided by arbitration but isn't satisfied by it?

[Wild Cobra]

The company's ability to force arbitration is only for civil matters. In this case, she wants to be able to sue the company for money damages. She is not suing the company for rape, the company did not rape her.

Than what good does Frankin's amendment do for a similar case in the future?

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you think this would only affect US corporations? The amendment would prevent the government from hiring ANY corporation that would allow arbitration for such items as sexual harassment, etc etc.

I've not seen anything saying that foreign companies would be exempt from these federal fund disbursement rules.

Part (b) of the amendment excludes corporations outside the USA.

Did you read the quoted amendment I put in an early post?

[elbamba]

I don't disagree that courts actually like arbitration, for a number of different reasons, and they've pushed the FAA extensively on Commercial/Contract, Labor and Securities arbitration. Even non-binding Judicial arbitrations lately.

Then again, there are some public interest ones where they did not (Douglas v. Talk America, 495 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2007), Harris v. Blockbuster Inc., No. 3:09-cv-217-M (N.D. Tex. April 15, 2009))

But more importantly, I can't find a single one where a criminal charge was levied and arbitration agreement prevailed.



My point is that contract law does not supersede criminal law. Otherwise, things like assisted suicide would be entirely legal by means of a waiver of rights and liability on a contract. Heck, even abortion!

You and I agree that contract law does not nor will it ever supersede criminal law. That was never my point. Arbitration clauses are only for civil purposes. They cannot be for criminal. However, the individual does not bring a criminal charge against an individual, onlt a prosecutor can do that. In other words, this lady cannot bring an action against Haliburton in a criminal court to which Haliburton will be subject to criminal charges.

My point is that arbitration is sufficient to cure her case against Haliburton. She can bring her actions against her individual captors in civil/state or federal court (probably federal).

The confusion over this issue is exactly why I am worried. NO CONTRACT supercedes criminal activity. However, Haliburton did not commit a crime here, individuals did who happen to work for Haliburton. Perhaps there is an action for vicarious liability I do not know the details of the case.

What I do know is that justice can be served in her case in three ways that are perfectly legitimate: 1) arbitrate with Haliburton 2)b bring a civil action against the individuals who committed the acts 3) report her case to a police department or the proper authorities and allow them to open an investigation that will bring these alleged criminals to justice through the appropriate criminal court. All three are open right now without the need for an amendment to the law. If everyone understood this they would realize that the real criminals are not off the hook through an arbitration clause.

[elbamba]

WC,

I think you and I have the same opinion on this, for the most part. I would agree with your law that arbitration can't cover criminal acts, though it seems obvious. I'm fine with arbitration for sexual harassment and things of that nature that aren't criminal in nature.

Elbamba,

Forgive my ignorance, but is the arbitration amount forced to be private? For instance, does she already know the amount provided by arbitration but isn't satisfied by it?

Yes, people and corporations arbitrate to keep in quite. This is done through a confdentality agreement which I can promise she signed. We will never know the outcome of an arbitration case because if she blabs, she is liable for talking about the settlement.

Think of arbitration like this, if you invent the worlds greatest fajita and people come from all over the world to eat your fajitas and your only partner works for you and steals your seceret and tries to start a new business. If you arbitrate your "trade secret" or special reciepe for fajitas is protected from the public. You don't want this info getting out.

Now, lets say Haliburton settles this case through arbitration for 5,000,000. She runs out and tells everyone. Then Haliburton receives 5 lawsuits next week with similar allegations. That is why you want to keep amounts quiet.

People take advantage of situations like this. I must have received 500 calls for personal injury lawsuits after the McDonalds spilled coffee jury verdict. Too bad millions of dollars were never paid. This is why people, including attorney's these kinds of settlements to stay silent.

[elbamba]

Than what good does Frankin's amendment do for a similar case in the future?

In my opinion, NOTHING. It is a useless amendment. Right now, all aspects of a courthouse are open in this case. She can sue Haliburton through arbitration. She can sue the individuals in a civil court of public record. She can file a police report and a US attorney/federal prosecutor can press charges against any individual or en y that has engaged in criminal activity. This too would be done in a court that is open to the publice.

The only thing we will not know is what settlement/decision was reached in arbitration. We will know if criminal charges lead to convictions and we will know what individual judgments (monetary) she gets against the individuals. This is all available now without need for amending.

[Wild Cobra]

In my opinion, NOTHING. It is a useless amendment. Right now, all aspects of a courthouse are open in this case. She can sue Haliburton through arbitration. She can sue the individuals in a civil court of public record. She can file a police report and a US attorney/federal prosecutor can press charges against any individual or en y that has engaged in criminal activity. This too would be done in a court that is open to the publice.

The only thing we will not know is what settlement/decision was reached in arbitration. We will know if criminal charges lead to convictions and we will know what individual judgments (monetary) she gets against the individuals. This is all available now without need for amending.

Thank-you. I was under the false impression part of the amendment was needed. Now I see the democrats are even more pathetic than I originally thought.

[LnGrrrR]

Part (b) of the amendment excludes corporations outside the USA.

Did you read the quoted amendment I put in an early post?

Ah, I must've missed that. Yes, that's a stupid clause.

[LnGrrrR]

The confusion over this issue is exactly why I am worried. NO CONTRACT supercedes criminal activity. However, Haliburton did not commit a crime here, individuals did who happen to work for Haliburton. Perhaps there is an action for vicarious liability I do not know the details of the case.

What about her being told that if she sought medical attention she'd be fired? Wouldn't that come down from the company?

As well, couldn't the company be liable if it was found that they in some way encourage/allowed/tolerated a hostile atmosphere?

[Wild Cobra]

What about her being told that if she sought medical attention she'd be fired? Wouldn't that come down from the company?

As well, couldn't the company be liable if it was found that they in some way encourage/allowed/tolerated a hostile atmosphere?

Can she prove that? I see that as a problem. This becomes a he-said-she-said situation. If it really happened, then the manager, supervisor, or who ever gets fired, and that's Halliburton's part. However, if the firey the person who said that, by her word alone, with no other evidence, then they open themselves up to a wrongful firing lawsuit as well.

Evidence is the key. Innocent till sufficient cause can be shown.

What happened is a tragedy, but what can one do?

[LnGrrrR]

What happened is a tragedy, but what can one do?

Sue, of course. I think the whole point of this thread though has gone into a meta-discussion of WHERE is the appropriate place to sue.

[ChumpDumper]

I see WC is still defending real rape.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Can she prove that? I see that as a problem. This becomes a he-said-she-said situation. If it really happened, then the manager, supervisor, or who ever gets fired, and that's Halliburton's part. However, if the firey the person who said that, by her word alone, with no other evidence, then they open themselves up to a wrongful firing lawsuit as well.

Evidence is the key. Innocent till sufficient cause can be shown.

What happened is a tragedy, but what can one do?

[boutons_deux]

WC and rightie ilk coming down, habitually, on the side of an (private) ins ution over an individual, while ing about (the govt taking) their freedoms and rights. ing hypocrites.

[Wild Cobra]

WC and rightie ilk coming down, habitually, on the side of an (private) ins ution over an individual, while ing about (the govt taking) their freedoms and rights. ing hypocrites.

You are such a stupid ass.

I am pointing out real concerns. Lower management is likely guilty of at least an attempted cover-up, and I want to see anyone responsible in jail. The problem is, without tangible evidence, there is no course that still doesn't open them up to a lawsuit for something like wrongful termination. Just because she was raped, it doesn't automatically make everything she said true. I would bet the corporation did all they can yo avoid risking farther legal trouble. It's a law enforcement task, not Halliburton's. I'm sure amy employees shown to have had a part will be terminated. You just are one that things it should happen without cause. I think you should consider how much of an authoritarian fascist that makes you look like.

Why are you against Halliburton without enough facts? Why do you carry so much hatred, that allows such profound bigotry?

Way to go Bouton's the Bigot.

[spursncowboys]

WC and rightie ilk coming down, habitually, on the side of an (private) ins ution over an individual, while ing about (the govt taking) their freedoms and rights. ing hypocrites.

The individual is the private ins ution.

[Nbadan]

Here is freshman Minnesota senator Al Franken's first-ever legislative action, a relatively simple, almost laughably surefire bill requiring the Pentagon no longer do business with any contractor -- hi, Halliburton! -- that requires its employees to agree that she cannot sue said contractor if she is, oh let's just say, gang raped by its employees.

You read that right. It's a can't-sue-us-if-you're-raped clause. In a U.S. government contract. Aimed squarely at Halliburton. Thanks, Cheney!

First, you are required get over your initial disgust that such legislation is even necessary, that such clauses even exist and that the Pentagon is already doing business with such contractors (hi, Halliburton/KBR!), and that there has already been a truly horrible case validating it, wherein a 20-year-old female employee was allegedly gang-raped by contractors, locked in a shipping container, abused every way from Sunday, and found out later she was unable to sue.

Let us pause to imagine if, say, Wal-Mart had such a clause. Or maybe Toys 'R' Us. Starbucks. Let us imagine the appalled outcry. But Halliburton? Cheney's vile little spitwad of shameless war profiteering? No problem. Hey, it's Republican-endorsed military contracting. No one said it was ethical.

But that's not most the repellant part. Ready?

SF Gate

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

All the Usual Susupects...

[PixelPusher]

[Cry Havoc]

That is just devastating.

And Halliburton should pay severely for this. Not for the crime that occurred. For their continuing efforts to take credibility away from this woman or minimize what happened to her. They engaged in a massive cover-up and damage control at all levels from a woman who had serious emotional, physical, and mental pain inflicted upon her. It's like a husband beating the out of his wife and then becoming angry that she's bleeding on the carpet.

Absolutely insane. Every time they have stalled this they should have to pay millions of dollars in compensation. Every year they tried to delay or get this tossed they should have to pay tens of millions. So I think a nice $50,000,000 settlement in favor of the woman sounds about right. I hope the purported other women come forward as well. And if it's ever found to happen again to a contractor, double the costs of everything. Send a message that this kind of cover-up will cost you a lot more than a couple jobs in the future. And ANYONE involved in the cover up should be given a minimum of 5 years in jail, anyone involved directly in the rape gets whatever the max is for aggravated rape. This company tried to this woman over after she has been through a worse ordeal than most of us will ever experience in our lives -- and they should pay heavily for it.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs really pushing to win the women vote in 2010.