« Appellate Court: Roomates.com Encourages Discrimination | Main | Lessons Learned from South Africa »

April 09, 2008


Priorities, please

Perhaps instead of spinning every story into the 'Corporations-are-evil' dead horse, you should focus on the fact that, if the allegations are true, there are two rapists who should be brought to justice.

But then again, who cares about rapists on the loose when there are evil corporations making their employees sign abrbitration agreements...

Spin Free

I believe that the fact that the rapists haven't been brought to justice is directly correlated with the problems posed by those corporate policies, which the post seems to take aim at.


Spin Free:

Please explain how employers' mandatory arbitration clauses are "directly correlated" with rapists not being arrested.

With a straight face, that is.

You would think that rapists running free would be an issue for, say, law enforcement. Thank God you pointed out the real culprits assaulting women: arbitration clauses. Women everywhere will breathe easy knowing that the problem of sexual assualt has been solved. Once we get rid of all arbitration clauses, rape will be a thing of the past.

Cristobal Josh

I couldnt agree more with Spin Free and Priorities. These men need to be brought to justice. The problem is the perpetrators seem to be in a law enforcement jurisdiction vacuum. The U.S. government has failed to bring even one charge against these men. The only thing left (assuming DOJ doesnt change course) is to bring a civil suit, which is the point of my posting. At a minimum, Jamie Leigh Jones and others should be able to raise these issues in a court of law. Unfortunately, because of these mandatory arbitration clauses, they are having extreme difficulty doing so. Hence, the dismissal of one of their cases. Which is very very wrong.

Joe Bingham

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that ABC has not reported that "another KBR/Halliburton rape victim has come forward." Just a wild, wild guess.


"The problem is the perpetrators seem to be in a law enforcement jurisdiction vacuum ... The only thing left ... is to bring a civil suit, which ... because of these mandatory arbitration clauses [is extremey difficult]."

Cristobal Josh:

There is no arbitration agreement between the rape victim and the rapist. The rapist is not an a "jurisdictional vacuum." The victim can sue the rapist in the traditional litigation system for, among other things, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Which brings us full circle: a man (or men) raped a woman. Instead of condemning the rape, and seeking the criminals brought to justice, this blog evidently feels that it's more important to focus on the employer's arbitration clause. Their conclusion? The employer doesn't "condone or tolerate civil rights."

You have to be kidding me. You know what's a million times worse than signing an arbitration clause? Getting raped. You know who REALLY doesn't "tolerate or condone civil rights"? How about, um, a RAPIST?!

Where is this blog's head at?



You know what's worse than getting raped? Getting raped and THEN having no access to either criminal or civil justice, and knowing that your employer not only doesn't care, but is actually working against your quest for justice.

THAT is the issue--it's not a contest between arbitration and rape over which is worse. Obviously by far the most severe assault these women experienced was the assault upon their physical security and bodily integrity.

However, let's not minimize the role of KBR in these incidents. By its alleged mistreatment of these women, by allegedly working to obstruct justice for these women (i.e., where's the rape kit? why was Jamie L. Jones kept locked away?), by allegedly threatening them and insisting that they keep quiet about the rapes, and by allegedly ignoring their complaints of dangerously hostile work environments for female employees, KBR certainly didn't help these women and may have had a hand in making things worse for them. This has to be examined and if KBR is culpable the public should know, just like the public gets to know when a rapist is convicted.

Should the alleged assailants just be able to go on working at KBR without even putting them on probation or investigating this? What is KBR doing to make sure this doesn't happen to other women? How is it compensating these women who now are forced to find other, less financially attractive, employment?



Look, this is not a contest between arbitration clauses and rape, over which is worse. Obviously the damage done by the assault on these women's physical security and bodily integrity is incalculable and much deeper and long lasting than the injustice of having your right to go to court stripped away.

However, having your right to go to court stripped away is an injustice, and in the context of rape allegations in which the employer may have been able to prevent it or to help you put your perpetrator behind jail, a very serious one.

Yes, getting raped is a million times worse than signing an arbitration clause. But you know what's a million times worse than getting raped? Getting raped and THEN having NO access to either civil or criminal justice. Your rapists go free, and your employer, who you complained to about sexual harassment and a sexually threatening environment, lets that rapist keep working while you have to go find another job. Or your employer tells you to keep quiet about the rape. Or the rape kit mysteriously disappears after it gets into the hands of the powers that be at your job. Or your employer locks you in a container and doesn't let you call your parents, a lawyer, or the police.

This blog is spot-on in its assessment. People should be outraged about the rapes, and outraged that KBR (allegedly) is doing all it can, via arbitration and other tactics, to avoid acknowledging what it could have done to help its employees.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Search The Blog