David Isenberg
Author, Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq (Praeger Security International)
Posted: February 8, 2010 11:54 PM
To paraphrase comedian Henny Youngman’s famous one-liner, take my KBR, please.
After all the bad press U.S. engineering and construction company KBR has received over the years for its operations in Iraq , both during its time as a Halliburton subsidiary and since, one might think it had learned a thing or two about how to avoid sticking its foot in its mouth.
But you would be wrong, As case in point consider the following legal brief KBR filed, which was posted online by the estimable Ms. Sparky — who is to chronicling KBR misdeeds, including those against it own employees, as white is to rice — in regard to the case of Jamie Leigh Jones.
For those who missed this news Ms. Jones is the then 20-year old former KBR/Halliburton worker, who says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad in late July 2005.
The main points are by now well known. She says that just four days after arriving in Iraq she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.
According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by “several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally.” Jones said that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped “both vaginally and anally,” but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.
Ms. Jones had to be rescued from her American employer by U.S. State Department agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, after she was able to contact her father by cell phone, who then contacted his congressman, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), who contacted the State Department.
In late 2007, over two years after the reported rape occurred, the Justice Department had brought no criminal charges in the matter. In fact, an investigation by ABC News could not confirm any federal agency was investigating the case.
Early on, in a statement, KBR said it was “instructed to cease” its own investigation by U.S. government authorities “because they were assuming sole responsibility for the criminal investigations.”
Since no criminal charges were filed, the only other option was the civil system, which Jones tried. But KBR didn’t want this case to see the inside of a civil courtroom. Instead, KBR moved for Jones’ claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom. It says her employment contract requires it.
When Jones went to work for KBR in Texas, and later for its subsidiary, Overseas Administrative Services, she signed contracts containing mandatory binding arbitration clauses, which required her to give up her right to sue the companies and any right to a jury trial. Instead, the contracts forced Jones to press her case through private arbitration, which she did in 2006.
At the time of the alleged attack, KBR was a subsidiary of Halliburton. So Jones was covered by the Halliburton dispute-resolution program, which was implemented when Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO. On his watch, Halliburton, in late 1997, made it more difficult for its employees to sue the company for discrimination, sexual harassment, and other workplace-related issues.
One day, Halliburton sent all its employees a brochure explaining that the company was implementing a new dispute resolution system. The company sold the new program as an employee perk that would create an “open door” policy for bringing grievances to management and as a forum for resolving disputes without expensive and lengthy litigation. In practice, it meant that anyone who had a legitimate civil-rights or personal-injury claim signed away his or her constitutional right to a jury trial. Anyone who showed up for work after getting the brochure was considered to have agreed to give up his or her rights, regardless of whether the employees had actually read it. In 2001, the conservative and pro-business Texas Supreme Court overturned two lower courts to declare that this move was legal.
In arbitration, there is no public record or transcript of the proceedings, meaning that Jones’ claims would not be heard before a judge and jury. Rather, a private arbitrator hired by the corporation would decide Jones’ case.
When Ms. Jones testified before the House subcommittee on crime, terrorism, and homeland security in December 2007 the point was made that as KBR employees working on contract for the U.S. Army, Jones’ attackers were almost certainly covered under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, more simply known as MEJA, which subjects all civilians working abroad with U.S. armed forces to a defined legal code. But in Jones’ case, MEJA seems to have fallen short for a different reason: a lack of investigative muscle in the Green Zone. Both then and now the Department of Justice lacks investigators in Baghdad with responsibility for looking into crimes committed by private contractors against their own.
KBR has not shown much adroitness in its handling of Ms. Jones’s case. In a December 2007 e-mail with the subject line titled “Recent media coverage,” KBR President and Chairman Bill Utt said the company has disputed allegations by Jamie Leigh Jones.
“While the allegations raised by Ms. Jones are serious, after a review of the case KBR noted inaccuracies in the accounts of the incident in question, and disputes portions of Ms. Jones’ version of the facts,” Utt wrote in an e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle.
There is reason to think that Ms. Jones was not an isolated case. In her lawsuit, Jones asserted that “KBR and Halliburton created a ‘boys will be boys’ atmosphere at the company barracks which put her and other female employees at risk.” Another former KBR employee, Linda Lindsey, supported Jones’s claims about the “boys will be boys” environment of KBR barracks in Iraq. “I saw rampant sexual harassment and discrimination,” said Lindsey in a sworn affidavit for Jones’s case.
In a December 2007 letter to Secretary of Robert Defense Gates, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) mentioned “a second alleged assault, this time of a woman from Florida who reportedly worked for a KBR subsidiary in Ramadi, Iraq in 2005.”
Since the attacks, Jones has started a nonprofit foundation called the Jamie Leigh Foundation, which is dedicated to helping victims who were raped or sexually assaulted overseas while working for government contractors or other corporations. Since Ms. Jones came forward, other women have come forward with similar lawsuits against KBR
It was primarily because of Ms. Jones that the fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations measure includes a provision barring the Defense Department from entering into contracts with companies that restrict alleged sexual assault victims from taking legal action.
The amendment was introduced by Sen. Al Franken, D-MN. Support for the amendment was broad, but far from universal. The provision passed the Senate 68-30 in October, when the chamber was considering an initial version of the spending bill. Some Republican opponents argued that it was not Congress’ place to interfere in private sector contracts.
“Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, during floor debate on the provision. “Instead of eliminating arbitration we should look into how to utilize arbitration more in these kinds of disputes.” Sessions called the amendment a “political attack directed at Halliburton,” KBR’s former parent company.
The Obama administration and the Defense Department initially opposed the amendment, although the White House insisted it supported the provision’s intent. The Pentagon’s primary concern, according to a letter Defense officials sent to lawmakers before the Senate’s vote, was enforcement.
“The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things,” the letter stated. “Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract.”
The letter stated that if the Senate deemed these types of contract clauses to be unacceptable, it might be more effective to prohibit them in any business transaction within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Negotiations between the department and Capitol Hill eventually resulted in a number of changes, including an agreement that the restriction would apply only to companies with government contracts valued at more than $1 million and that it would contain a waiver for national security concerns.
The provision, now law, does not require companies to change existing employment contracts, but will bar the government from entering into future pacts with those firms if they do not modify employment clauses. When the provision passed the Senate, Franken said it “narrowly targets the most egregious violations.”
With all this one might think that both KBR and Halliburton would have long ago seen given up trying to treat this as some sort of labor dispute, which should be handled by arbitration. Especially in light of recent court decisions.
Last September the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a decision in regard to an appeal from Halliburton regarding the case. According to the case summary:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant employer sought review of a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which partially refused to compel arbitration of some of appellee employee’s claims against the employer, which stemmed from the alleged gang rape of the employee by coworkers while working in Iraq.
OVERVIEW: The employee alleged that she informed the employer that conditions at the barracks were not safe and that she was gang raped in her bedroom after a social gathering outside the barracks. The claims for assault and battery, emotional distress, negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and false imprisonment were found not arbitrable. At issue was whether these claims were related to the employee’s employment or constituted personal injury arising in the workplace, so as to render them arbitrable under the arbitration agreement. The employer argued that the claims were covered by the agreement because the alleged incident “related to” the employee’s employment. The court disagreed. Sexual assault was not within the course and scope of employment. This was true even though the employee received workers’ compensation benefits in connection with the incident, as the terms “course and scope of employment” were more narrowly defined under the agreement than in workers’ compensation laws such as the Defense Base Act. That the employee lived in employer-provided barracks was inconsequential because she was off duty at the time, and the barracks were located away from the work place.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Yet KBR is preparing to fight Ms. Jones over her right to settle her suit with the company, all the way to the Supreme Court. Its strategy? Destroying Jones’ credibility.
In its most recent 188-page brief KBR petitions for a writ of certiorari, which is a document a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Court to review the decision of a lower court.
To quote from the brief:
This interlocutory appeal from a partial refusal to compel arbitration concerns the arbitrability vel non of tort claims by an employee who, while working at an overseas location, was allegedly gang-raped by her co-workers in her bedroom in employer-provided housing. Halliburton Company/Kellogg Brown & Root, and various affiliates (Halliburton/KBR), contest the denial, in part, of their motion to compel arbitration of Jamie Leigh Jones’ claims concerning her alleged rape by Halliburton/KBR employees, while she was stationed at a company facility in Baghdad, Iraq. All of her claims were deemed arbitrable except for: (1) assault and battery; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of the alleged assault; (3) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of employees involved in the alleged assault; and (4) false imprisonment.
At issue is whether those four claims found non-arbitrable are, for purposes of Jones’ employment contract, “related to [her] employment” or constitute personal injury “arising in the workplace”. That contract incorporated Halliburton/KBR’s dispute resolution program (DRP), which required her to arbitrate all claims brought against the company falling within the scope of related-to or workplace language. In the alternative, should the alleged rape be deemed covered by the arbitration clause, at issue is whether the doctrine of unclean hands precludes granting equitable relief of specific enforcement of that clause.
Not being a lawyer myself I can’t comment on the jurisprudence of all this but I do find it amazing that KBR fights so hard to avoid doing the right thing; namely letting Ms. Jones have her day in court.
After all, on other issues, KBR can show signs of rationality. An example is the op-ed
that appeared in this past Sunday’s Washington Post. The author, a former Air Force loadmaster, who was discharged for being gay, notes that within three weeks of his discharge, KBR hired him to go back to Iraq as a radio repair technician. (KBR knew that he was gay.)
So, for the time being, I can only suggest that KBR be subjected to the full barrage of ridicule it so richly deserves. After all, to cite a defense often heard in rape cases, it is asking for it. (click HERE for original article)
Head on over to Amazon.com and take a look at David’s book Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq (Praeger Security International)
For another KBR employee’s brave and public account of sexual assualt in SWA the book Cindy in Iraq by Cynthia I. Morgan, Free Press, 2006 is an informative document. Ms. Morgan also provides an interesting account of other aspects of her work for KBR as a truck driver and convoy leader. I do not know if Ms. Sparky readers have already learned of this book, but I do reccomend it.
Yes…she is in my Blogroll as White Roses Adventures. Here is a link to her book. http://cindyiniraq.com/book/
BUY HER BOOK!
As a former HR staff member & facilitator for the KBR Joint Base Balad Orientation (June 2008 – September 2009), I addressed over 1,400 new hires, rehires and transfers and was invariably asked at each and every orientation, why it was necessary to attend the same orientation over and over. To the groans of the attendee’s, I would state that it was because of issues of corporate liability, so that no one could base a claim by saying, “nobody ever told me that”, regarding site specific policies covering the subjects of Security, HSE (Health, Safety, and Environment), Medical, EAP (Employee Assistance Program), Ethics Training (inclusive of the KBR Code of Business Conduct and Trafficking In Persons), and Harassment & Respect In The Workplace.
While this may not be the time to go into this subject in depth, suffice it to say that as a former KBR HR staff member, I find it incredulous how anyone working for KBR in Iraq or Afghanistan, could possibly be so arrogant as to think of themselves as untouchable, and unaccountable to any authority, PARTICULARLY in light-of-the fact that it is constantly iterated and reiterated innumerably & exhaustively, that any form of harassment on the LOGCAP project will not be tolerated, let alone sexual assault.
Take a pervasive machismo atmosphere exacerbated by inordinately high levels of aggression naturally associated with being in a war zone, add to the mix a corporate culture tacitly condoning boorish behavior, the tragic result: A recipe for disaster which the façade of morality can not legislate.
LOGMaster
I am surprised that as HR for KBR or any contractor for that matter – you did not bring up the fact that under the law not only did these people have to go through the same orientation during redeployment – they are required by law to have YEARLY training on Harassement, Ethics and TIP – not to mention time charging an expense reports.
It all sounds wonderful – however, I have been working for Government Contractor for over 30 years and to be honest – I have not found a single work environment at any of them where there was not some sort of harassement especially in the area of boorish behavior and comments. Unfortunately, unless it is something as grevious as assult – don’t bother reporting it – especially to EAP – that is a fast track to unemployment.
Most of these companies only have Ethic’s and Harassement policies and an EAP process at all becuase they get points from the Gov’t. No one ever bothers to check to see if they actually follow them or if the systems work.
You are absolutely correct – you cannot legislate actual morality.
You are correct. I would be remiss in my duties if I failed to mention that COBC & TIP’s training is/was a yearly requirement, and thank you for bringing that important bullet up.
Not meaning to get off on a tangent and I won’t belabor the point, but actually I was required to produce sign-in sheets for everyone attending the JBB Orientation on more than one occasion, with documentation proving said attendance, in each individuals personnel file.
Also, the HR Data Cell was required to scan a copy to HQ of everyone attending COBC and TIP’s reflecting badge number, printed name, signature and date.
In regard to talking to EAP, ER, or HR, it was obvious and apparent – even well-before I ever became an HR staff member – that if one could articulate one’s argument, grievance, or position on a subject in a logical, unemotional manner, well, you stood a much better chance of prevailing than someone coming in ranting, raving, and totally out of control throwing the F-bomb every third word.
Government Compliance regularly required supporting documentation, as well as for SOX audits – (Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002).
Had to love KC didn’t you
Well – can’t agree on the EAP. I brought a complaint which I had back up in the form of written emails. My HR manager actually backed me up as a witness of the treatment.
We were both offered the opportunity to resign before we were fired. We were told that the person that was the subject of the complaint was “too valuable and untouchable,” We both left and now work for other companies.
So much for my faith in the EAP process.
I can definitely apprecitate what you’re saying, and that there are at times a breakdown in the process which leads to understandable frustration.
Although not specifically addressing an EAP issue, the following is an example of an argument I ran up the flagpole to corporate ER and DRP regarding being passed-over for an interview.
I sent the e-mail with delivery and read receipt requested, and the day after I got the receipts back, as if by some kind of freakin’ miracle, the Red Sea parted and I got notification that I was scheduled for an interview.
Again, though not on the original topic, the segue in regard to the following e-mail I sent and how it relates to your previous situation – and many others similar situation I’m sure as well – is that an argument must be presented in a logical, linear fashion particularly when dealing with corporate sharks, or else you face at the worst, the distinct probability of being categorically dismissed and eaten alive, and at the least, toting a good down-home ass chewing.
Two things I learned during my time with KBR HR when it came to submitting a statement is:
1. If it isn’t written down, it didn’t happen.
2. Document, Document, Document. Dates, times, minute details of conversation, events, participants, corroborating witnesses, etc.
Okay, I didn’t mean to, but I lied – I actually learned more than two things:
3. First one to the flagpole has the strategic and tactical advantage.
4. Use every 50 cent word you can think of, and CITE POLICY BY VERSE AND CHAPTER. If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with… more of your brilliance…whatever.
Hopefully someone can benefit by this – (apologies for the redaction necessary to maintain confidentiality). Here goes:
***BEGIN TRANSMISSION***
To Whom It May Concern:
I formally request intervention and an independent inquiry via the Dispute Resolution Program to be conducted in addressing the following incongruities detailed and described herein.
The purpose of this petition is to obtain mitigation regarding the inequality with which the Internal Job Posting process within the LOGCAP III Theater of Operations has been egregiously applied, specifically in regard to my job application dated 11 July, 2009 for the KBR job posting IJP BAF-1114.
The body of this document details actual and perceived improprieties I have personally been subjected to, in the Internal Job Posting application and selection process to wit:
It is my assertion that the Internal Job Posting process utilized by KBR within the LOGCAP III Theater of Operations for the selection process of ostensibly qualified candidates is a failure and in dire need of revamping.
Furthermore; my contention is that the IJP process is fundamentally flawed and fails to provide equal opportunity for all equally qualified individuals.
The IJP process, while structured to meet technical compliance, severely fails to provide ethical adherence on a variety of levels. One notably being, that the preferred skills for consideration of qualification can be custom tailored and manipulated to target specific individuals, allowing a favored applicant to gain an unfair strategic advantage over the general pool of applicants.
Case in point, citing: IJP BAF-1114; Preferred Skills; Bullet #6 specifically states in part: “Extensive knowledge of the Afghan 1st program, including Policy #3 and #13…”
It is my contention, that unless the policies of the Afghan 1st program are widely available for any and all KBR employees to have an equal opportunity to view, familiarize and avail themselves of, there is a distinct connotation of impropriety in that, the particular preferred skill is unobtainable to anyone not having common access to the policies.
Moreover, it is obvious from the nomenclature of the job posting, that the preferred skill #6 is intended to serve as justification for filling the position with someone hand-picked and to preclude the possibility that anyone other than the pre-intentioned candidate is disqualified from consideration.
I will concede that with the exception of bullet #6, all other preferred skills are attainable by means other than that necessitated via insider knowledge of the Afghan 1st program.
Had this preferred skill #6 been referencing policies number 3 and 13 of the KBR Code of Business Conduct, Conflicts of Interest and Antitrust and Competition Laws, respectively, (which I rationally assumed it was), it would have been a reasonable preferred skill, as all KBR employee’s do in fact have access to the Company intranet and would therefore have equal opportunity to gain extensive knowledge of the policies, for which a reasonable expectation to have comprehensive knowledge of the policies could therefore have been established.
In short, this stipulation sets a precedence of qualification which can not realistically be met by anyone other than a candidate privy to the specific preferred skill, which paradoxically can only be attained by having access to the policies referred to therein. Linear reasoning therefore leads to the only logical conclusion that preferred skill #6 is actually rhetorical in nature not intended to elicit a suitable group of candidates.
Furthermore, it is my contention that the job selection process is applied inconsistently and is inherently biased with an unfair advantage toward those who the hiring manager associated with the position have pre-intended to hire by means of concealment, manipulation, and abuse of privileged information.
Presently, the IJP process allows certain individuals to gain an unfair advantage over other applicants and negates the original intention of the IJP process set in place, which is to allegedly eliminate favoritism and provide equal opportunity for all applicants.
Stated otherwise, the selection process, superficially touted as providing equal consideration for all qualified applicants, is seemingly a façade designed to generate the appearance of equality.
In the vernacular, the infamous “Good ol’ boy” attribute explicitly referenced in the KBR Front Line Supervisor Training Course (which I attended), is in direct contradiction to those attributes which should foster and promulgate fairness and inclusion
It is a widely held belief, and there is strong anecdotal evidence to support, that hiring authorities hire exactly who they want to hire within LOGCAP irrespective of candidates qualifications and that the system of checks and balances which should provide guidance and serve to ensure impartiality and equality in the selection process is grossly lacking.
For this reason, the IJP system is severely weakened in its effectiveness and is apparently largely disingenuous allowing inordinate latitude for arbitrary decision making by the associated hiring manager.
In deliberation of this empirical data, due diligence along with fair and ethical corporate governance in regard to the un-biased administration of the IJP process is therefore rightly called into question, as preferential candidates are ascribed implicit consideration.
In summation, I find the present IJP process diametrically opposed to non-prejudicial consideration, highly discriminatory in nature and contradictory to equal employment opportunity for qualified candidates, all of whom should have a reasonable expectation for an interview should they meet the job description requirements.
Hence, I submit for the Board’s consideration, my application for the previously stated IJP BAF-1114, which, under scrutiny, should indisputably at the minimum have warranted an interview for the position.
In support of this discourse, I would now like to digress to a prior incident which took place following my submission of IJP SAL-210 on 22 July, 2008 and the subsequent resubmission on 28 August, 2008 following a reposting of the position as IJP SAL-227.
Subsequent to my interview for IJP SAL-210, I was informed via a brief telephone call on or about 24 August, 2008 from Thomas Treverrow, Afghan 1st Manager and hiring authority, that the job was being reposted. I feel it pertinent to point out that during this interview, Mr. Treverrow deviated from the standard protocol of asking all interviewee’s the same identical mix of behavioral and technical questions, by questioning my motivation as to why I would apply for an Operation’s Specialist position with Afghan 1st, now that I was in HR.
I found this to be highly inappropriate and inarguably a direct divergence from standard interview methodology as specifically referenced on the KBR intranet website.
After reapplying for the position reposted as IJP SAL-227, I received no notification of an upcoming interview which was the same identical position as IJP SAL-210. Following the closing date of 31 August, 2008, I consulted with Charlie “Ben” House the Senior HR Specialist on Joint Base Balad at that time, expressing my concern and bewilderment as to why I would receive an interview for the original posting, but not for the subsequent reposting.
Mr. House verbally assured me that he would make an inquiry as to the status of my application with Kevin Long, the ER Representative on BAF at that time.
A few days after my conversation with Mr. House, Mr. House verbally informed me that he had indeed heard from BAF, and in Mr. House’s words, he summarily told me that I should just “forget about it” with no further enlightenment offered regarding this ambiguous and vague explanation.
This is a typical representation of how “business gets done” in regard to the IJP process and exacerbates the entire problem, serving to further illustrate and underscore my contention that the IJP process is irreparably broken, fraught with discrimination, bias and inequity.
Moreover, this interaction with Employee Relations raises a further issue regarding my request for feedback following an interview for a position that I was not chosen for. My grievance with this is that my request for feedback was patently ignored. This was not an unreasonable request in order to gain insight into areas of weakness so that further review could have been made for similar positions which may have come open in the future.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Upon judicious examination of my resume when contrasted with the job description set forth in IJP BAF-1114, it is obvious and apparent that I met the job requirements for the position. I find it incredulous that my application was categorically disqualified and could not have passed the pre-screen criteria set forth by the weighted pre-screen competencies utilized by standardized IJP Interview Tools.
When constructing IJP’s, it is standard operating procedure to utilize the job description from the Company intranet website which is a generalized overview of the position. It is only within the list of Preferred Skills does ambiguity become a factor.
Finally, it is professionally demeaning, denigrating and wholly demoralizing to realize individuals within the Company whose questionable tactics are tacitly condoned and endorsed, are allowed to continue un-checked and go on with applying these indiscretions which propagate throughout and perpetually weaken, the entire IJP process.
I would like the reviewing party of this appeal to be aware that during the course of facilitating the Joint Base Balad Orientation since June of 2008, I have personally addressed in excess of 1,400 personnel on the subjects of Ethics Training (COBC and Trafficking In Persons) and Harassment & Respect In The Workplace.
In these presentations, I have consistently stressed to the attendees that Employee Relations and the DRP program are there as a safety net for them and to utilize these services should the necessity ever arise.
I find it ironic that I am now the one in need of DRP.
Therefore, I am requesting an expeditious response to this petition, as I seek to have these issues addressed in greater detail within an impartial, unprejudiced and retaliatory-free neutral venue in which objectivity is assured, and in which no connotation of liability for having raised these issues is assigned.
Post Script: On 19 July, I sent an email to the individual listed as the hiring manager for IJP BAF-1114, inquiring as to the status of my application. I received an out-of-office reply stating that he was on R&R with instructions to contact Thomas Rizzo which I did, to which Mr. Rizzo replied that the hiring manager was on R&R and that he would be reviewing the applicants upon his return.
I then waited until the hiring manager had returned from R&R and emailed him again on 25 July inquiring as to the status of my application. To date, I have still not received a response.
In order to circumvent any possibility of an attempt to assign culpability for allegedly violating protocol or committing any alleged impropriety in regard to my quest for resolution of this matter, I also emailed the Sr. ER Representative (Barbara Alexander) here at Joint Base Balad on 28 July, 2009 briefing her on what has transpired to this point and requesting assistance in determining the status of my application. Ms. Alexander essentially advised me to make no further attempt in contacting the hiring manager, unequivocally stating that particularly in view of the recent return of the hiring manager from R&R a substantial amount of time has not elapsed between the closing date and now, and that if I am chosen for an interview I will receive an email or a phone call from the HR staff.
Once again, my perception is that I am being stone-walled by the system, discouraged from going forth with my grievance regarding this matter, and that I am encountering the same manner of pragmatic opposition with which my inquires regarding IJP SAL-210 and 227 were met with in July and August of 2008.
For the record, as compelling and passionate as this appeal may be, I am dubious that anything will ever be resolved and that coming forward with these concerns risks eliciting retaliation which I mention in closing strictly as a matter of “CYA”, as I have personal first-hand knowledge by virtue of my position within HR, of the propensity for which the term “insubordination” is loosely and conveniently applied when an argument is made (no matter how logical or well stated) as it suits management (collectively speaking).
For the purpose of clarification, please be cognizant that my reasoning for contacting Corporate ER and DRP is that I believe any attempt for resolution at Site Level would be futile.
Please contact me if I may provide any further elucidation on this subject.
***END TRANSMISSION***
Ooops! Redaction be damned!
Information is good and should be followed. I actually came out just fine as I qualified for ADA and since the company would not follow their own policiies – I then filed suit.
I won big time.
Due to the tangled legal status of contractor personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, contractor personnel may have felt “untouchable and unaccountable by any authority.” The worst that could happen appears to be they would lose their job. This placed rape in the same category as having some beer hidden away.
As far as I know, no contractor employee has been prosecuted for rape under Iraqi law, the UCMJ or state law in the US. If I am wrong about this, I would appreciate the details.
Some of the members of Congress I speak with occasionally are working the issues of contractor personnel legal status and more contractor accountability. The bill Al Franken proposed was one such effort, unfortunately killed in the Senate.
Are you talking about the Franken Amendment or another bill Franken was working on? I’m under the impression the Franken Amendment was signed into law in December 2009.
KBR employee David Breda, plead guilty to rape of another KBR employee at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq and was recently sentenced in Texas. I know he was arrested and detained at Al Asad by NCIS. http://mssparky.com/tag/david-breda/
I was thinking about the Franken ammendment. I was not aware it actually made it through. I should get out more.
I was also glad to know about the successful prosecution. Too many of the cases did not achieve a good result.
I hope the risk of losing work will provide an incentive for contractors to protect their employees. It is contractor management who can place responsible supervisors in positions where they can monitor the workforce, where they will face consequences if employees are not protected. In my opinion, the flow down from putting work and profits at risk is our best hope. If that had been the case, maybe Cynthia Morgan would not have been housed in a room she could not lock.
It’s just hard to keep up.
At least the NCIS got one right for change and actually nabbed someone.
I remember a CID in Bagram, Afghanistan; they brought several people in for questioning regarding a similar incident in 2005. Everyone was asked to voluntarily provide DNA suave samples. Some declined others provided.
Upon further questioning, the CID found out they had the wrong number hooch of some of the people brought for questioning regarding of an alleged crime.
The voluntarily provided DNA samples of those who were brought in by “mistake” for questioning were discarded and destroyed. The CID moved on with its investigation of the alleged crime. I have always thought KBR provided the some of names the intent of malice.