KBR, Rape and Outrageous Contracts

Remove all ads!

They are lucky. KBR rapes them instead [NOT representative of most other US corps, btw].

...And the justice department closed the case. I would have closed them down instead [in Iraq].

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

 

Heh, but that means that KBR still has a place and use for women in the workforce, as long as they don't get uppity or dare invoke their rights (including not to be raped or the right to some due process). At least Jones won her civil law suit.

Besides, fabulous policy. The affable but arch reactionary Mike Huckabee would probably approve.

 

Ragusa, the lawsuit just started like 3 weeks ago, she hasn't won anything yet.

 

rg58,
you're right. Thanks for the clarification.

 

I have met Ted Poe. In fact, my dad was a bailiff in his court when he was a judge. He prides himself on his honesty and integrity. He is well-liked [except by a lot of those people convicted in his court] and very well respected in Houston by the public. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

I wish Jones all the best. What KBR contracted her (and other employees) into is a contractual outrage, as lopsided in favour of an employer as can an unfair agreement can possibly be (to wit It took her five years of legal action just so she could go to court), and that obscenity needs to be scrapped in court. The atrocious treatment she received at the hands of her employer on top of that should be severely sanctioned.

Al Franken's Jones Amendment has done his part to prevent further such outrages, and I hope Jones' case will lead to a finding that scraps KBRs unfair contracting practices retroactively.

 

Some contracts are just plain BS. No one goes into a contract believing that they are contracting away their right to not be raped. IMHO, the rapists, and the douchebag senior management who covered up the rape and illegally detained this woman, should be treated with equally brutal severity.

 

It happening in Iraq prevented her from filing charges, since the Justice Department made the political decision under Bush that they did not want to claim (even though they could have) jurisdiction (a silly argument IMO; crimes committed by German nationals or crimes committed against German nationals that take place everywhere on earth (including in the US) are for instance prosecutable in Germany - if anything, the US view here is more expansive). I recall the US having claimed jurisdiction in a case of an American paedophile who molested children overseas. He was arrested, prosecuted, sentenced and is now detained in the US. Where there's a will, there's a way *.

Arbitration is no complete surrogate for a court decision with due process, and the two are not exclusive. Binding arbitration in labor relations is almost necessarily lopsided in favour of the (financially) stronger party (i.e. the employer, who is incidentally paying for and choosing the arbiter). That's no problem between KBR and, say, BP, who'd share costs and agree on an independent arbiter. Miss Jones doesn't have BP's legal team and not their financial staying power and consequently she doesn't have their choice. To metaphorise: You don't pit a high school team against the Lakers and expect a balanced match.

The idea behind arbitration is to find a more economic way to come to a mutually acceptable agreement that comes to a final result at the fraction of the hassle (discovery), imponderables and costs a lawsuit would involve. Used that way it is sensible. In Jones' case KBR brazenly maintained the rape wasn't about a crime but something work related, and thus had to go through binding arbitration. I didn't see her contract, but I have an exceedingly hard time imagining that being raped had anything to do with her job (as in: job description, item #6b ...).

Arbitration is not an opportunity to rip the other party off by compelling people to agree into something very short of a fair deal because they cannot sustain financially and emotionally fighting those five years Jones had to fight - only to get standing (something like that is the exception), using a corporations superior financial leverage (to wit: people who work for money tend to need that money). KBR's binding arbitration model is a textbook example for misuse of the instrument.

It is a preposterous idea that one can completely sign away and then for the entire duration of employment forfeit the right to have a grievance heard in court, especially when said grievance is about crimes that co-workers committed against one, with the employer for all practical purposes helping them covering it up. Court standing even in face of a binding arbitration agreement is a final check for outrageous contracting. Arbitration is all nice and well, but it can't replace fully and indeed, must not replace fully, a final referee with the full authority of the law. If there was any residual doubt about the good sense of that reasoning, the Jones case should have dispelled it.

Spoiler

* PS: The reason the Bushies chose to not claim jurisdiction was very likely because that would have made explicitly clear that the US had jurisdiction over other stuff other civilians did in Iraq (keywords: CIA, torture, the odd contractor rampage). The desire to prevent setting a precedent that would consequently compel them to investigate things they didn't want to see investigated led them to leave folks like Jones out to dry, and so far let her rapists get away.

 

Clarification: I meant standing to sue her employer in a civil law suit in spite of that binding arbitration agreement for crimes committed against her during her employment, by her employer (like illegal restraint; possible theft/destruction of evidence; possible conspiracy to cover up a rape). That's what Jones fought five years for, since KBR from the onset claimed the binding arbitration agreement precluded that. Not so.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce insists that forced arbitration is still "cheaper, faster, and fairer" than the civil courts. Interesting assertion.

KBR's idea of fair arbitration meant that employees who went to an arbiter over a grievance had no right to appeal if they lost. Data from the American Arbitration Association showed that KBR won more than 80 percent of its cases in arbitration. It also showed that out of 119 cases KBR arbitrated over a four-year period, only three resulted in the employee actually winning any money. (link)

Jones and her lawyer went to court after 15 months in arbitration realizing the same thing. "Cheaper, faster, and fairer" my a**.

The court very reasonably found that the alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract.

 

Well the jury apparently didn't believe her. texas woman loses case against kbr

 

Wow, that is stunning. Considering how the left has villified Halliburton over the years and considering she was pretty I figured the jury would side with the redhead over the big bad evil corporation.

 

You didn't get the point that Ted Poe is at least as far as you are, if not even further, on the right and he "villified" the big bad corporation as much as anyone on the left. For people of true integrity it is not about "the Left" or the corporations. Or even if the woman in question was "a redhead," or not. You will never get that point.

I live in the Houston area so I was not stunned, and as I commented, even though Ted Poe sided with "the redhead" that it would be "interesting" to see how this would play out.

 

Trifles. Don't let your facts get in the way of his haunting narrative of persecution.

And never mind the contracting. Only a lefty could possibly object to ... something as cheap, fast, and fair (or maybe fair and balanced) as that. That only 3 out of 119 employees going through arbitration were awarded any money just shows how exemplary an employer KBR was.

 

How is that an example that KBR is not exemplary? Doesn't it just show that 116 of the claims were without enough merit for the arbiter to decide in their favor? Are you implying that KBR (an evil corporation) has somehow subverted the arbitration process for their benefit? Why do you think that the 116 cases if they had gone to a trial and a jury would have had a different outcome? In this case in particular the plaintiff fought to get out of arbitration and to get a trial, and still lost. I don't get the hate. The only thing I can surmise is that the left has residual hate of Bush/Cheney and since Cheney was a Haliburton/KBR guy it has transferred onto them. Thank God Cheney didn't work for Ben and Jerry's.

 

From the article it seems they had other employees who said she didn't act as if anything had happened in the days following the alleged rape(I just call it that since it hasn't been proven in court). I think that testimony hurt her as bad as anything else.
As Taluntain stated she will make millions from book & movie rights. Not as good for her ability to heal from the rape(if it happened, IDK)

 

I would have thanked God if he had, rather than the mess he made, along with his boss, out this nation.

RG - I agree. She had her day in court and that's all most of us can ask for. I did not sit through the trial, nor did I keep up with the evidence, so I cannot comment either way on the verdict. I don't always agree with jury verdicts, like Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson, but it's the system we have. Juries may not always be right, but until something better comes along, that's the game in town.

Oh, yes. Absolutely. I'm sure that's why large corporations prefer arbitration, because it works out better for their employees, rather than themselves. I wonder what KBR does when it wants to sue someone? I'm sure arbitration is THEIR first choice for themselves as well.