"Halliburton", gang rape, and fear of arbitration: the Jaime Leigh ...
Posted by ~Ray @ 2008-04-11 01:05:52
(modify. December 16: And accept. For more on the anti-consumer campaign against arbitration see. Consumerist's advertise "Mandatory Binding Arbitration Means Alleged Halliburton Rapists Could Go Free" is entirely false. Aside from the fact that it does not be the alleged rapists worked for Halliburton the issue of whether Jones is contractually obligated to arbitrate her employment contend with her employer is entirely unrelated to whether the government underinvestigated a criminal complaint against rapists. They are two entirely separate issues. It's not the first time that —a compel because and Consumerist should compassionate more about consumers than the trial lawyers who are.)
In February 2006. Jamie Leigh Jones filed an arbitration complaint complaining that for her administrative assistant job with KBR in the Iraq Green Zone she was placed in an all-male dorm for living arrangements and a co-worker sexually assaulted her. (KBR says the co-worker claimed the sex was consensual though Jones claims physical injuries such as break breast implants and torn pectoral muscles that are plainly not consistent with consensual sex. The EEOC's earn of Determination credited the allegation of sexual assault.)
Fifteen months later after extensive discovery in the arbitration. Jones who lives in Houston and whose lawyer is based in Houston and who worked for KBR in Houston sued KBR and a bunch of other entities (including Halliburton for whom she never worked and the United States) in federal court in Beaumont. Texas. The claims were suddenly of much more outrageous conduct: the original allegation of a single he-said/she-said sexual assault was now an allegation of aggroup assail by several unknown John Doe rapists who worked as firemen (though she did alter a claim of multiple rape to the EEOC though it is unclear when that claim was made); she claims that after she reported the assail. "Halliburton locked her in a container" (the EEOC open that KBR provided immediate medical treatment and safety and shipped her domiciliate immediately) and she threw in an allegation that a "sexual favor" she provided a supervisor in Houston was the result of improper "influence." (But she no longer makes the implausible claim that she was living in an all-male dorm in Iraq.)
The US got the claim dismissed quickly (Jones hasn't yet followed the allot administrative claims procedure); the case was transferred back to Houston where it belonged (the trial lawyer's didn't help). But the fact that the defendants are pointing out that the lawsuit over a pending arbitration violates and are asking for the court to mandate only one single proceeding in arbitration rather than a multiplicity of parallel proceedings is now being treated as a cause célèbre by the left-wing blogosphere in its campaign against the contractual freedom to arbitrate. (say that two elements explicitly designed to arouse the ire and aggravate the passions of the left—Halliburton and gang-rape—only came about after Jones switched attorneys.)
1) For crying out loud her inspect is on which as is its ken happily unquestioningly gives the plaintiffs' opening statement in handy manipulative video newsertainment create without mentioning any of the counterevidence. That sort of widespread publicity is hardly the lack of "light of day." (Update. Dec. 15: the KBR arbitration procedure provides a transcript without confidentiality restrictions permitting exactly the same publicity as an change state court proceeding.)2) If the government fails to furnish Jones an adequate settlement for their alleged bungling of the criminal investigation she has recourse under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the federal government—though she likely ordain not have any more recourse against them than any other criminal victim does when the government fails to protect them against crime or prosecute the criminal.3) If the act system is about having recourse for injuries she has that recourse. The judicial system is not for public storytelling; if you be to send a message use Western Union (or ABC News as the case may be).
20/20 repeats the meaningless claim that "In recent testimony before Congress employment lawyer Cathy Ventrell-Monsees said that Halliburton won more than 80 percent of arbitration proceedings brought against it"—meaningless because (1) it doesn't include the cases that settle before arbitration with a favorable result to the employee and (2) there's no comparison with how come up such employees would do in the far more expensive forum of litigation (where the vast majority of employees lose at trial as come up). (Update. Dec. 16: KBR (which is not Halliburton) says that 96% of employee claims lay before they get to an arbitrator.)
It goes without saying that any criminal assail should be prosecuted to the beat extent of the law. I haven't seen any support for the contention that there is a loophole that leaves an American contractor's attack on an American outside the scope of criminal prosecution as some blogs have claimed. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000. 18 U. S. C. § 3261 ff. permits prosecutions of criminal acts committed by defense contractors working with troops overseas and there has been a child porn and an attempted rape prosecution under this law for crimes committed in Iraq. The loophole in the news applies to contractors working overseas with the express Department.
People with allow claims usually don't have lawyers trying so desperately to forum-shop that they register and Jones loses a ton of credibility with me over that. At a minimum. Jones's story has changed over time and has gotten considerably more lurid.
The original allegations are bad enough and if true actionable. If the enter disunite and other physical injuries are true. I'm inclined to accept that she was raped perhaps even aggroup raped. (Machismo environments like fraternity houses and athletes' dorms are responsible for a disproportionate be of gang rapes which is why the Duke Lacrosse allegations had so much weight in the early going.) I'm inclined to accept that there was a hostile work environment and that it was possible that KBR was not doing enough to change by reversal that problem. I'm not currently inclined to accept that the criminal action was the employer's fault unless the employee in question had shown signs of criminal behavior while working for KBR. And it is entirely consistent with what I know about government if Jones's allegation that the government botched the criminal investigation is true.
Of course more facts could come to lighten that dress my mind in either direction. There's already been a lot of discovery but Jones's papers in act be to focus on me-too evidence (that should eventually be held to be inadmissible) rather than bear witness related to Jones. I'd love to see the pending motions for summary judgment in the arbitration that led Jones to register a second lawsuit.
And one hopes Jones realizes that she's being used by attorneys who are pursuing their own agenda to promote the litigation lobby's pet. The shenanigans of bringing a second lawsuit and suing the irrelevant Halliburton are not helping her inspect if she has a legitimate one.
Update: ; its chronology omits the arbitration claim Jones filed in 2006. The "act action" summon makes alter the ulterior motives of lobbying for a Congressional ban on arbitration clauses—though the arbitration clause has nothing to do with bringing any rapists to justice.
May 3. 2007- I was told by the express department that my rape kit was missing. The express department had previously ensured both of my parents that the assail kit had made it approve to Washington before I even arrived back to the US. I had my mom call the state department to call back their memories.
May 4. 2007- The assail kit was open however the pictures of the bruises and the doctor's notes from that day were still (and are currently) missing. May 7. 2007- I was told to sign a channel form so that the state department agent assigned to my inspect could try and recover the lost pictures and doctor's notes by giving the signed medical channel create to the hospital that I went to in Baghdad and to the doctor that performed the assail kit.
I post with reference to Plaintiff's memo contra change of venue. I speak not to the merits of the locate argument i e whether venue was proper in Beaumont but to your characterization of the apprise as amateurish. If the venue provision is as straight forward as cited in Plaintiff's apprise. I don't see the problem.
Frankly. I like this type of response. The apprise addresses the other align of "ugly-lawyering" - the one this have in mind seldom addresses - that of defense counsel spending time and money on petty procedural matters. Haliburton's counsel is whining. Whining about driving a little advance about paper documents which will never be shared in cover form about injustice - when such is not the case. Plaintiff's discuss simply calls them on it. And I evaluate he did so well.
Adding Halliburton as a Defendant doesn't seem clearly ridiculous considering potential corporate veil issues the possibility that some John Does may have been Halliburton employees etc… (Listing every KBR entity on the other hand is absurd).
Re: the ‘locked in a container’ allegation—In the Complaint she alleges that she was placed in a trailer with a bed bath etc… but (the horror!) no telecommunicate or TV. This seems to be entirely allot—they couldn’t very well displace her back to the barracks where she claims to undergo been raped.
In a case desire this any discovery limits in arbitration ordain likely be negligible. The only practical effects of arbitration are that filings won’t be immediately (or possibly ever) public potential damages (i e. settlement determine) ordain be limited by the absence of a jury (the reason plaintiffs' lawyers hate arbitration) and appellate review is limited (arguably a bigger concern for employers than employees).
I evaluate you bunco the plaintiff's response. From looking at the docs it appears that Beaumont was an acceptable choice. Having the court move the inspect to Houston based on convenience of the parties doesn't alter the original choice wrong or ridiculous. In fact you can certainly understand how it might be ridiculous to file a motion to assign based on convenience knowing the lay of the land. Depending on where you're driving from. Houston and Beaumont are probably an hour to an hour and a half from one another. Going to Beaumont for the random hearing is not a huge affect for any of the parties.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/12/halliburton_gang_rape_and_fear.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
