Posted by denised in 
I’m no great fan of Al Franken, but after years of offending people with crass jokes, Al’s trying to make up for lost time by proposing an amendment that would prohibit the government from contracting with companies who require their employees to agree to resolve certain claims, including rape and sexual assault, through arbitration. The amendment was proposed after Jamie Leigh Jones claimed that while working for a contractor in Iraq, she was gang raped by employees. When she attempted to sue her employer, she was basically shown the fine print in her contract.
30 senators opposed the amendment (which eventually passed in the senate) on the grounds that “the government should not interfere with how corporations contract with their employees.” I’m beyond being surprised at what senators oppose or support these days and the ridiculous arguments they use to convince themselves that they’re doing the right thing. No, what I want to focus on is the company in question, KBR Inc., a subsidiary of Haliburton, and their contract.
My first question would be, is sexual assault and rape of colleagues such a common occurrence that you’ve got to stipulate in contracts that employees can’t sue if they become victims of sexual assault? Really? What kind of violent, misogynistic ship is this company running? Can you imagine signing a contract with a stipulation that says just in case you’re raped, don’t come to us. I certainly couldn’t and probably wouldn’t. But regardless of whether Jamie Leigh Jones signed that contract knowing it included the arbitration clause or not, KBR doesn’t get to pull a get out of jail free card because they warned her it might happen. Am I missing something here?
Contract or no contract, should KBR be legally liable for the actions of their employees towards one another? Share your thoughts in the comment section.
