Rape case to influence rules for contractors
By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY
Houston Chronicle
Dec. 16, 2009, 7:39PM
WASHINGTON— Prompted by the alleged rape of former KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones, Congress is poised to pass a measure banning defense contractors from forcing employees to use arbitration to resolve claims of discrimination and sexual assault.
House and Senate negotiators agreed to include the no-arbitration provision in a $636 billion defense spending bill that passed the House 395-34 on Wednesday. The measure now heads to the Senate, which is expected to pass it before Christmas.
Employers and other potential lawsuit targets generally prefer binding arbitration because it keeps disputes out of the court system, where juries can inflict damaging verdicts.
The no-arbitration provision would ban defense contracts worth more than $1 million with companies that seek to enforce or establish binding requirements in employee contracts in certain circumstances.
The provision covers any requirements that force workers to use arbitration to resolve claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, assault, battery, infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment and negligent hiring.
Heated debate
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., who pushed the initiative, said it “allows victims of assault and discrimination their rightful day in court.”
The agreement and House move Wednesday caps weeks of sometimes heated debate that began in October when the Senate voted 68-30 to adopt Franken’s proposal. The 30 Republicans who opposed it — including Sen. John Cornyn of Texas (Phone# 202-224-2934) — were instantly the target of barbs from liberal commentators and bloggers accusing them of being rapist sympathizers.
While liberal commentators were fuming over opposition to the binding arbitration ban, Obama administration officials and Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii (phone# 202-224-3934), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, raised concerns that it could leave defense contractors vulnerable.
Some exceptions
In response, House and Senate negotiators narrowed the final language to allow arbitration in cases where the defense secretary or a deputy “personally determines (it) is necessary to avoid harm to national security interests of the United States.” House and Senate members also agreed to limit the scope of companies that would have to comply with the mandate, restricting it to those with federal contracts of $1 million or more.
Cornyn on Wednesday called the changes “a positive development.”
Franken said the arbitration proposal was a direct response to Jones’ allegations that she was raped by co-workers while in Iraq in 2005. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in September that Jones’ lawsuit against Houston-based engineering firm KBR and its former parent company, Halliburton, can go to trial, despite language in her 18-page employment contract requiring that such claims be resolved through arbitration.
However a Houston-based federal judge in 2008 dismissed a similar claim by another woman who claimed she was raped while working for KBR, citing the binding arbitration language in her employment contract.
Jones has told her story in testimony to Congress and via a Web site for the Jamie Leigh Foundation. The Conroe native has said fellow military contractors drugged and raped her and then held her in a shipping container. (Click HERE for original article)
————————————-
I don’t know about you but the line from Santa Claus Is Coming To Town, just keep running through my head ”He’s makin’ a list and checkin’ it twice.” I think we all know what list KBR is on.
For all the current and former employees who have fought, endured and persevered Merry Christmas to all and to all a good fight!
–Forseti
I know it won’t happen but, it would be really wonderful if this was made retro-active back a few years – not just two – which is the standard “Statute of Limitations” for crimes other than murder or rape. So many folks would be running to lawyers – and KBR would have to hire more lawyers to defend themselves. Of course KBR would be saying that it would jeopardize national security for a particular case to go forward like say one I know where I received an email from someone who was held against his will by KBR security and not allowed to get on his flight to go home.
I know KBR has the heads of all their security chiefs probably on conference calls instructing them on how to get around this amendment – should anything they might want to do to flex their mighty strength against all that are against EVIL DEEDS being done – such as in the Jamie Leigh Jones type situations and, other violent acts.
UPDATE and unfortunately there be a weasle clause:
Unlike the original bill, which imposed arbitration limits on companies receiving 2010 defense funds under “existing or new” federal contracts, the revised bill is slightly narrower. Only companies that sign federal defense contracts 60 days after the bill becomes law would be forced to change their arbitration practices across the board.
So if a company signs no new federal defense contracts in the next year, then they are exempt from the arbitration limitation this year, Franken’s spokester Jess McIntosh confirmed. McIntosh argued that the legislation has the same effect because of how often large defense companies sign government contracts.
But will Franken’s amendment affect KBR, the former employer of the inspiration for the bill? It’s highly probable, though they have to sign a new contract. (Click HERE for entire article)
Obama Signs into Law Restriction on Arbitration Clauses
The White House said today that President
Barack Obama signed the spending bill into law on Saturday.
Under Section 8116 of the bill, no money can go to a defense contractor unless the contractor agrees not to enter into or enforce any employment contract “that requires, as a condition of employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree to resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” or many tort claims.
In six months, the restrictions will apply also to subcontractors. Contracts and subcontracts under $1 million are except from the provision. The defense secretary or his deputy may also grant a waiver if doing so is “necessary to avoid harm to national security interests of the United States,” though the waiver will become public.