The Junior Senator from TX

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I don't think the amendment has anything to do with the criminal side of the girl's rape case. My understanding of the case was she wanted to sue in court and not go through the arbitration contract she signed. A AG or DA is not hindered by their ability to prosecute in a criminal court from the arbitration.

/thread.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It probably wouldn't be enforced.

The macho assholes who run these mercenary corps ain't got no repsect for the law or wimmen.

But the Repugs really know how to win the female vote.

LOL. The macho assholes are still getting paid by Dems in power, but keep spewing your Republican hate.

[FromWayDowntown]

Thing is, such agreements cannot shield an employer from breaking the law.

To think that the arbitration process is a fair one is silly. An arbitration agreement cannot shield an employer from breaking the law, but it sure can ensure that the consequences arising from breaking the law are minimized -- particularly the financial consequences.

If that's all it did, we would all be for it. It does no such think however. Part (b) of the amendment makes almost certain all future DoD contracts will go to corporations of other flags. Boeing is screwed, Airbus wins. Hands down.

Why? Because domestic corporations are no longer permitted to insist that even personal injury claims are submitted to arbitration?

There are good reasons for an employer to require such things. This keeps cases dealing with proprietary information and legal trade secrets from being discussed in open court. I have signed such agreements with most of my employers. These agreements do not protect a corporation from whistle blowing, or breaking the law.

Hence my distinction in arguing that submitting personal injury claims to arbitration is outlandish.

If a corporation can get those it contracts with to agree to submit claims arising under the contract to arbitration, more power to them I suppose. The consequences of arbitration in a purely-contractual dispute are not nearly as draconian. As it is, repeat players in arbitration (almost exclusively corporations or other business en ies) begin that process with a monumental advantage in most instances and to allow that advantage to inure to the defendant in a personal injury case strikes me as being hideously unfair and contrary to sound public policy.

[Wild Cobra]

To think that the arbitration process is a fair one is silly. An arbitration agreement cannot shield an employer from breaking the law, but it sure can ensure that the consequences arising from breaking the law are minimized -- particularly the financial consequences.

How? That does not make sense.

Have you ever read or signed such an agreement.

Please show me the text of the one she signed.

[FromWayDowntown]

How? That does not make sense.

Have you ever read or signed such an agreement.

Please show me the text of the one she signed.

I deal with arbitration agreements all the time. In the civil context, an arbitration agreement might not do away with a claim (i.e., a personal injury suit contending that she was injured by an action that her employer had a duty to prevent), but submitting a claim to arbitration substantially diminishes the chance that she will prevail (arbitrators have a distinct economic incentive to favor the repeat players, who tend to decide which arbitrators will preside over disputes) and certainly diminishes the extent of the damages that she will recover if she manages to prevail.

Why else would corporations be so interested in having disputes submitted to arbitration instead of courts? It's certainly not an altruistic choice.

Thus, while the corporation isn't immune from liability because of the arbitration provision, it does limit the civil liability the corporation will face in most cir stances.

[Wild Cobra]

I deal with arbitration agreements all the time. In the civil context, an arbitration agreement might not do away with a claim (i.e., a personal injury suit contending that she was injured by an action that her employer had a duty to prevent), but submitting a claim to arbitration substantially diminishes the chance that she will prevail (arbitrators have a distinct economic incentive to favor the repeat players, who tend to decide which arbitrators will preside over disputes) and certainly diminishes the extent of the damages that she will recover if she manages to prevail.

Why else would corporations be so interested in having disputes submitted to arbitration instead of courts? It's certainly not an altruistic choice.

Thus, while the corporation isn't immune from liability because of the arbitration provision, it does limit the civil liability the corporation will face in most cir stances.

Then explain this to me. What grounds and evidence does she have to sue Halliburton. She can only identify one attacker. She has no evidence against them, only her word otherwise. There is some rape evidence, but no evidence that Halliburton is either responsible, or covering up. Only her word of such.

Do you think Halliburton should pay for what her attackers did even if they have no part in it?

Arbitration is for disputes of a civil nature. This is a criminal case.

[Wild Cobra]

Why? Because domestic corporations are no longer permitted to insist that even personal injury claims are submitted to arbitration?

Have you read all of part (b)?

It goes well beyond.

[FromWayDowntown]

Then explain this to me. What grounds and evidence does she have to sue Halliburton. She can only identify one attacker. She has no evidence against them, only her word otherwise. There is some rape evidence, but no evidence that Halliburton is either responsible, or covering up. Only her word of such.

Do you think Halliburton should pay for what her attackers did even if they have no part in it?

Arbitration is for disputes of a civil nature. This is a criminal case.

So are you saying that there's no civil claim against an employer for an employee who was raped? I don't know all of the facts, but if she was raped in the workplace, are you saying the employer has no liability for that having occurred? Employers are sued for personal injuries suffered by their employees all the time -- even personal injuries caused by the tortious conduct of others who are not within the employers' control.

What she knows or doesn't know -- what she can prove or not prove -- are defensive matters that the employer can rely upon; it doesn't mean that she can't sue the employer. If she can establish that her employer owed her a duty to prevent things like rapes, she has a claim against the employer.

And that an act may give rise to criminal liability does not preclude a civil action on the same conduct. Think of the OJ Simpson case -- prosecuted for murder and then sued civilly for wrongful death.

I agree that arbitration clauses can really only deal with civil matters, but I think you're wrong in the belief that Halliburton is categorically free from liability here. And that brings me back to my basic point: that arbitration clauses work poorly where the litigated claims are for personal injuries.

[FromWayDowntown]

Have you read all of part (b)?

It goes well beyond.

Nonsense.

Section (a) says that if you require employees to sign arbitration agreements concerning certain types of claims -- those arising under " le VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention." -- then you can't get funding.

Section (b) then says -- as it must -- that if the employment contract is unenforceable in the United States, it cannot serve as a mechanism to refuse funding.

Technically, if Halliburton or others wished to maintain funding it could either hire foreign nationals or try to require that its contracts be enforceable in nations other than the US.

Or (and this seems ridiculously simplistic, I know), it could retain its funding by just omitting arbitration provisions concerning covered claims from its contracts; in fact -- and I hate to diminish the opportunity for further partisan bickering -- it could just attach an addendum to its contracts that makes clear that the arbitration provision is inapplicable to the covered claims.

[Wild Cobra]

Nonsense.

Section (a) says that if you require employees to sign arbitration agreements concerning certain types of claims -- those arising under " le VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention." -- then you can't get funding.

hiring, supervision, retention...

Are they expected to disband their union contracts to get contracts? Now honestly think about it. That is a legal implication of possible interpretation of those words added.

Section (b) then says -- as it must -- that if the employment contract is unenforceable in the United States, it cannot serve as a mechanism to refuse funding.

Yep, why should the DoD bother with the countless red tape to verify a USA employer follows such guidelines. So much simpler to use a foreign contractor.

[boutons_deux]

"There he goes again"

WC always coming down on the side of the ins ution to over the individual, as is always the self-congratulating conservatives' reflex.

[Wild Cobra]

So are you saying that there's no civil claim against an employer for an employee who was raped? I don't know all of the facts, but if she was raped in the workplace, are you saying the employer has no liability for that having occurred? Employers are sued for personal injuries suffered by their employees all the time -- even personal injuries caused by the tortious conduct of others who are not within the employers' control.

Why should she be able to sue them if they are not criminally negligent? As far as I care, that's like trying to sue the police because they didn't prevent a crime, that they had no indication would happen.

What she knows or doesn't know -- what she can prove or not prove -- are defensive matters that the employer can rely upon; it doesn't mean that she can't sue the employer. If she can establish that her employer owed her a duty to prevent things like rapes, she has a claim against the employer.

How does an employer have such a responsibility. Are they her 24/7 protectors?

And that an act may give rise to criminal liability does not preclude a civil action on the same conduct. Think of the OJ Simpson case -- prosecuted for murder and then sued civilly for wrongful death.

Yes, I don't agree with such things. He was found not guilty in a higher court. The civil suit is ridiculous.

I agree that arbitration clauses can really only deal with civil matters, but I think you're wrong in the belief that Halliburton is categorically free from liability here. And that brings me back to my basic point: that arbitration clauses work poorly where the litigated claims are for personal injuries.

I would like to know what liability you think they have. If an employee of your local supermarket killed a person in a bar during his off, would you claim the supermarket had liability?

These individuals acted outside the rules of Halliburton. I haven't seen any intentional hinderance of any law enforcement by those who make the riles at Halliburton. You have individual employees acting on their own. Why should Halliburton be at fault?

[Wild Cobra]

"There he goes again"

WC always coming down on the side of the ins ution to over the individual, as is always the self-congratulating conservatives' reflex.

No, I am showing the fallacy of an argument.

[boutons_deux]

"showing the fallacy of an argument"

which, as usual, gives the benefit of the doubt, the preference, the power to ins ution to crush and violate the individual, with you proclaiming yourself as a strict Cons utionalist, a do ent which very clearly protected individuals ahead of ins utions, the Founding Fathers being very familiar with the Kings, aristocracies, and churches of Europe holding the individuals in the repressive Dark Ages to the benefit of the royalty, aristocrats, priests.

[FromWayDowntown]

Why should she be able to sue them if they are not criminally negligent? As far as I care, that's like trying to sue the police because they didn't prevent a crime, that they had no indication would happen.

Because the civil law is almost never dependent upon being able to establish criminal liability. The two things are very different. In the criminal context, the State obtains punishment on behalf of an individual -- but the individual who suffers the injury occasioned by the crime is not made whole. In the civil context, the person who is injured by the act of another (whether the act is criminal or not) is made whole for his or her injuries in monetary damages.

It's comparing apples and oranges.

How does an employer have such a responsibility. Are they her 24/7 protectors?

They aren't. But if she's raped while on the job or if she's made to live in housing provided by the employer and the rape occurs because the security in that housing is inadequate to prevent rapes, I'm not sure how it's inequitable to say that the employer should bear some responsibility for conduct that it should have done more to prevent.

Yes, I don't agree with such things. He was found not guilty in a higher court. The civil suit is ridiculous.

So even though there was proof that Simpson killed the decedents -- and even though proof in a civil context must only preponderate in favor of the claimant and not prove the claimant's allegations beyond a reasonable doubt -- the families of the decedents should not have recovered any damages for the wrongful death of their loved ones?

Suppose that the families had sued first and established that Simpson killed their loved ones -- are you comfortable with the idea that Simpson could not have subsequently been prosecuted criminally for that conduct?

And since when is a criminal trial court a superior court to a civil trial court?

I would like to know what liability you think they have. If an employee of your local supermarket killed a person in a bar during his off, would you claim the supermarket had liability?

Hey, if she was not acting in the course and scope of her employment and she was not on premises that her employer controlled, I'd agree with you. Your example fits my facts. But, again, if she's working at the time she's raped, or if she's in premises that the employer controls at that point in time, I absolutely think the employer owes her a duty and I think that the employer's failure to uphold that duty is compensable in civil damages.

And I can assure you that I've got the considerable weight of legal authority behind me in that belief.

These individuals acted outside the rules of Halliburton. I haven't seen any intentional hinderance of any law enforcement by those who make the riles at Halliburton. You have individual employees acting on their own. Why should Halliburton be at fault?

Of course they did -- and that gives Halliburton a right against the guys who didn't comply with those rules.

But if Halliburton was in a position to prevent the rape from occurring (and if it didn't do all that it could have done to prevent that rape from occuring), it's civilly liable to her in every single American jurisdiction.

[Wild Cobra]

Because the civil law is almost never dependent upon being able to establish criminal liability. The two things are very different. In the criminal context, the State obtains punishment on behalf of an individual -- but the individual who suffers the injury occasioned by the crime is not made whole. In the civil context, the person who is injured by the act of another (whether the act is criminal or not) is made whole for his or her injuries in monetary damages.
It's comparing apples and oranges.

Hence, the agreement. Otherwise employers are targets of lawsuits just for the chance of settlement even. the bigger the employer, the more incentive for a frivolousness lawsuit. If employers cannot protect themselves from such illegitimate actions, then we will lose these employers like we have so many other industries.

They aren't. But if she's raped while on the job or if she's made to live in housing provided by the employer and the rape occurs because the security in that housing is inadequate to prevent rapes, I'm not sure how it's inequitable to say that the employer should bear some responsibility for conduct that it should have done more to prevent.

Security inadequate.

Give me a break. In your book, every crime victim then in the USA should be able to sue the police.

So even though there was proof that Simpson killed the decedents -- and even though proof in a civil context must only preponderate in favor of the claimant and not prove the claimant's allegations beyond a reasonable doubt -- the families of the decedents should not have recovered any damages for the wrongful death of their loved ones?

But it was not proved. I say he is likely guilty, but I would have voted for aquittal I think, because the evidence was poor, and there was taiting of the evidence.

Suppose that the families had sued first and established that Simpson killed their loved ones -- are you comfortable with the idea that Simpson could not have subsequently been prosecuted criminally for that conduct?

no. A civil case requires a simple majority. The deck was stacked against him.

And since when is a criminal trial court a superior court to a civil trial court?

If not legally, at least it is in what it takes to convict.

Hey, if she was not acting in the course and scope of her employment and she was not on premises that her employer controlled, I'd agree with you. Your example fits my facts. But, again, if she's working at the time she's raped, or if she's in premises that the employer controls at that point in time, I absolutely think the employer owes her a duty and I think that the employer's failure to uphold that duty is compensable in civil damages.

So you can make the argument that security should be able to control every inch or property 24/7? I think not.

She wasn't in a secure office building or anything like that. Any idea how many square miles such a base of operation is?

And I can assure you that I've got the considerable weight of legal authority behind me in that belief.

It doesn't seem very good.

Of course they did -- and that gives Halliburton a right against the guys who didn't comply with those rules.

Yes, but we are back to making a sound case against who. She cannot even identify them, except one.

But if Halliburton was in a position to prevent the rape from occurring (and if it didn't do all that it could have done to prevent that rape from occuring), it's civilly liable to her in every single American jurisdiction.

I would say the only thing they could have done to prevent it was to have enough extra security to cover every part of the huge compound 24/7. I think that's unreasonable, and most people would agree, hence, your point is pointless.

Have you see the agreement she signed by chance?

[Wild Cobra]

"showing the fallacy of an argument"

which, as usual, gives the benefit of the doubt, the preference, the power to ins ution to crush and violate the individual, with you proclaiming yourself as a strict Cons utionalist, a do ent which very clearly protected individuals ahead of ins utions, the Founding Fathers being very familiar with the Kings, aristocracies, and churches of Europe holding the individuals in the repressive Dark Ages to the benefit of the royalty, aristocrats, priests.

Hmm...

So you prefer guilty until proven innocent?

[boutons_deux]

"prefer guilty until proven innocent"

that's your straw man, you suck it.

"innocent until proven guilty" is to protect individuals, not ins utions.

[Wild Cobra]

"prefer guilty until proven innocent"

that's your straw man, you suck it.

"innocent until proven guilty" is to protect individuals, not ins utions.

And because the sentiment is a corporation is guilty until proven innocent, they would all go bankrupt if they didn't have a mechanism to protect themselves with.

[spursncowboys]

"prefer guilty until proven innocent"

that's your straw man, you suck it.

"innocent until proven guilty" is to protect individuals, not ins utions.

"
The business of America is business. "
Calvin Coolidge

[boutons_deux]

"sentiment is a corporation is guilty until proven innocent"

a perfectly workable sentiment, which also applies to politicians.

Corps will always go right up to edge of letter of the law for their financial advantage, screwing the spirit of the law and any ethical or national interest concerns. Not that I expect any ethical behavior by corps because they are not persons and ethics is not a consideration in making profits.

Because the corps are much more interested in greed and predations, they spend much more energy and talent violating the law than the govts can muster to prosecute them. Once in a while, the govt will snag a corp (actually, the govt snags BigPharma quite freuently for many $Bs in fines, which vastly understates the damages and deaths due to BigPharms) but of course catching a corp is the exception, not the rule.

eg, corps violate clean water and air regulations systemically, so yes, in general, the working principle should be that the corps are guilty and the burden of proof of innocence is on them.

Corps can be assumed to be guilty simply because the policing function of govt is so underfunded and understaffed, compared to the resources corps can "invest" in cir enting laws and regulations.

Corps can spend millions to buy exemptions for politicians (eg, industrial food and animal farms as "point sources" of pollution are exempted for many ground water pollution rules).

BigCoal absolutely refuses to put scrubbers on their current plants, and of course they also pollute horribly by dumping coal ash (another exemption from toxic waste, but it is very toxic). BigCoal wants taxpayer money to build "clean" coal plants, and they will probably get it.

Corps are the biggest violators and destroyers of America, simply because they have tremendous industrial and financial power. eg, the current depression is completely due the too-powerful, under-regulated financial sector.

[Winehole23]

I'll admit to being fairly ignorant about this situation, but it sounds -- from what I've read -- that her tort claims arising from the rape charge were referred to arbitration. Again, I'll admit that I may be misunderstanding that.

The articles refer to pending lawsuits, but are cryptic about criminal responsibility. It's been suggested there can be no criminal cause for Ms. Jones. I could be wrong, but that's what I've gathered. At any rate, the DOJ is still silent on the matter.

I think the amendment doesn't do much -- although I think it does good work -- if it extends only to civil claims/criminal complaints concerning rape in this context; if it would extend to claims for personal injury that would give rise to either civil or criminal liability (and it may -- I don't know), it would be a meaningful and significant change in the law.

I agree. Give victims of assault the customary remedies.

Personally, I think the notion of an arbitration provision that could conceivably apply to personal injuries is absurdly unfair and should be contrary to public policy.

Anti-business. It's just hassle and expense for the contractors. Have a heart.

[Winehole23]

And because the sentiment is a corporation is guilty until proven innocent, they would all go bankrupt if they didn't have a mechanism to protect themselves with.

With all the lying es who cry rape for no good reason? Doubtless.

Halliburton should remain immune from any responsibility for violent assaults, and for covering up the same. Obviously.

[Winehole23]

Halliburton should be shielded from any legal responsibility and social disgrace that would normally attach to covering up rape.

[Cry Havoc]

Give me a break. In your book, every crime victim then in the USA should be able to sue the police.

That is one of the most outright ridiculous comparisons I have ever read on Spurstalk. It makes my brain hurt just to try to process what kind of bizarre logic you're basing this on. Wow.