“Jamie Leigh Jones was a 20-year-old young woman working her fourth day on the job in Baghdad for contractor Halliburton/KBR in 2005 when she says she was drugged and gang-raped by seven U.S. contractors and held captive by two KBR guards in a shipping container,” said a ABC News report.
“But more than four years after the alleged crimes occurred, Jones is still waiting for her day in court because when she signed her employment contract, she lost her rights to a jury trial and, instead, was forced into having her claims decided through secret, binding arbitration.”
Earlier this month the Senate listened to her story and passed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would prohibit “the Defense Department from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration,” according to ABC News.
Seems like a no brainer, right? The government supporting companies that do not allow their employees to bring their attackers to court seems to be a bad thing.
Not unless you are Republican. Thirty of them voted against the amendment.
Way to go GOP. That’s the way to show how far out of touch with reality your party really is.
How on earth can anyone really be opposed to this? How can anyone in their right mind be opposed to sexual assault victims allowing their case to be heard in court?
Many employee contracts state if an employee has a sexual assault claim you have to go to private arbitration where there are no judges, no appeal systems, no juries and no justice.
John Cornyn opposed this amendment. I am ashamed he represents our great state.
And for those still on the straight talk express, John McCain voted against it. I still cannot believe this man almost became president.
All I ask of these senators is, “why?” What is the logic behind opposing this amendment? You think your precious corporations are going to get caught in covering up rape and sexual assault as was the case with Halliburton and Jamie Leigh Jones?
The Minnesota Independent reported Jeff Sessions, the Republican from Alabama, argued it as a “political attack directed at Halliburton.”
Yes Sessions, it is an attack on Halliburton. A justified attack on Halliburton. It is obvious the clause in Halliburton’s contract is designed to silence assault victims as to not harm the company’s image. In their attempt at good PR, Halliburton is denying the due process every person deserves when victim to a crime. In this instance, Halliburton should be attacked and condemned.
Sessions also argued it goes against the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. It seems not voting for this amendment would go against the Due Process Clause. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Seems employee contracts like Halliburton’s would do such a thing.
In the end the amendment will allow victim’s voices to be heard. Prior to the amendment, any person (man, women or transgender) that was a victim of assault had to go to a private arbiter because their contract said they had too.
In the case of a private arbitration, it is just that. Private. They are not allowed to go public with their stories. If they do, they risk being fired. It is obvious the more victims who come out with their stories the better because that increases the chances another victim hears it and knows they are not alone.
I guess I don't understand, did they hold a gun to her head to make her sign the employment contract? Looks to me as if she agreed to the arbritration clause. That said, I agree that she shoiuld get some justice and the people that violated her should be punished.
Without reading the amendment I hesitate to declared anyone a pig. There may be other items in it that justified the vote against it.