Franken's anti-rape amendment passed yesterday, an amendment that would punish government contractors who have clauses in their employee contracts which prevent employees from suing if they're raped by co-workers. This happened after a former Haliburton employee was gang-raped and locked in a box by her co-workers but unable to sue due to a clause in her contract.

So, who would vote against such a measure? Who would defend the right for companies to allow their co-workers to gang-rape each other?

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Take note of the fellow in bold when the next elections come around.

10/15/2009 12:30:02 PM

This is from last month, but is on a related note:

http://bluenc.com/case-you-missed-it-senator-burr-voted-against-insurance-victims-domestic-abuse

Quote :

"This was covered already in Blue South's excellent post, but it bears repeating, again and again and again and again. Here's the sad story: "... an amendment was introduced ... that would have forced insurance companies to stop ignoring state laws that provided protection for victims of domestic violence, specifically when it came to denying them insurance coverage. Ten Republican Senators voted against it, including Senators Alexander, Burr, Ensign, Enzi, Frist, Gregg, Hatch, Isakson, Roberts and Sessions." "

One person running for office responded:

Quote :

"pre-existing condition insult Submitted by cjmalone on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 3:37pm. Literally, this adds insult to injury. I strongly support abolishing the right of insurance companies to declare domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition. I'm ready to file a bill to the contrary as soon as I can as a senator in the N. C. Senate. Charles Malone, Candidate for Democratic nomination to the N. C. State Senate, Dist. 15 2010 Charles Malone "

10/15/2009 12:37:35 PM

^^Why so sensitive about rape all the sudden? You've been harping on anything rape related for a while now.

Too little information in this thread to convince me that this one bill is reason enough not to vote for a candidate. Maybe he feels that there is already enough legal and civil recourse for rape victims without going after the employer of their rapist? Seems reasonable enough for lack of any substantial evidence otherwise.

I love your thread title though...A+ read. Lends a lot of credibility to the upcoming post.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM. Reason : l]

10/15/2009 12:37:51 PM

I'm going to guess that they had some justification for voting this way, legitimate or not.

10/15/2009 12:38:47 PM

I dont see why one should sue a compnay bc you are raped by someone who works for that company. This is ridiculous. Sure, sue all involved.. but the company?

10/15/2009 12:40:49 PM

There's really no excuse to defend this. It's especially ironic when the Republicans rallied so much against Acorn for abusing taxpayer dollars.

^Because the company attempted to cover it up.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2009 12:40:57 PM

Also Bank-Run-Burr opposes veterans!!1!

10/15/2009 12:41:05 PM

^^^
I agree. Why should the company be held liable? It is a little odd, though, that they have a clause in their contract specifically prohibiting this.



[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 12:44:05 PM

Quote :

"^Because the company attempted to cover it up."

Well that sounds relevant to nearly all rape cases and I'm sure there is no current legal recourse for that type of action. I agree that we should pass a new law to address this one specific instance and anyone who doesn't support said law is defending the right of a company's employees to gang rape each other.

10/15/2009 12:44:31 PM

how exactly did the company try to cover it up?

10/15/2009 12:46:19 PM

Sorry, I assumed everyone was familiar with the case. Here is more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

Quote :

"Jones began working for KBR as an administrative assistant in 2004 when she was 19, and started her contract of employment with Overseas Administrative Services, Ltd. in Houston, Texas on July 21, 2005. According to Jones, on July 28, 2005, several of her fellow KBR employees offered her a drink containing a date rape drug, of which she took two sips. The men then engaged in unprotected anal and vaginal gang-rape upon her while she was unconscious. She was able to name one of her attackers based on his confession to her, but was unable to identify the others due to her unconsciousness. Further, the lawsuit filed by Jones' attorneys cites the following: "When she awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, she found her body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn – which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, she passed out again." Jones' account was confirmed by U.S. Army physician Jodi Schultz. Schultz gave the rape kit she used to gather evidence from Jones to KBR/Halliburton security forces, after which the rape kit disappeared (though it was recovered later). Jones was confined by armed guards to a shipping container containing only a bed, under the orders of her employer, KBR. She says she was denied food, water, and medical treatment. After approximately one day, says Jones, a sympathetic guard gave her a cell phone and she called her father, Tom, who in turn contacted Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) who contacted the State Department. Agents were dispatched from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and removed Jones from KBR custody. In May 2007, a State Department diplomat recovered the rape kit from Halliburton and KBR. However, notes and photographs taken by Schultz (of Jones the morning following her rape) were missing, undermining any chances of bringing the case through the criminal courts."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/gangraped-then-locked-in-van-iraq-worker-says/2007/12/20/1197740465943.html

Quote :

""The KBR security took me to a trailer and then locked me in a room with two armed guards outside my door," Ms Jones said. "I was imprisoned in the trailer for approximately a day. One of the guards finally had mercy and let me use a phone." An army doctor collected DNA evidence, including vaginal swabs and scrapings from her fingernails, and placed them in a box for evidence. Ms Jones said the doctor gave the box to a KBR security officer but it went missing. A State Department diplomatic security agent recovered the kit in May 2007, but the doctor's notes and photographs are now inexplicably missing, undermining any chances of bringing the case through the criminal courts. KBR has been silent on the matter, though according to ABC News the company circulated a memo among employees saying that it "disputes portions" of Ms Jones' version."

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2009 12:47:40 PM

Wow, that's terrible. I would have assumed a clause like this would be nullified in court.

10/15/2009 12:52:28 PM

It was.

Quote :

"On September 15, 2009 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Jamie Leigh Jones' federal lawsuit against KBR and several affiliates can be tried in open court"

Bingo bango, why do we need new laws or amendments again?

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 12:56:09 PM

another thread by God with a shitty false misleading strawman title

10/15/2009 12:56:59 PM

Because clauses like that should be illegal?

10/15/2009 12:57:06 PM

Mandatory arbitration should be illegal? Or just in rape cases? Because it looks to me like the judicial system just figured out that it shouldn't apply to rape cases.

10/15/2009 1:00:52 PM

Employment clauses that prevent employees from bringing a civil or criminal suit against the company if coworkers commit crimes against the employee while the employee is at work should be illegal.

10/15/2009 1:02:56 PM

A few of your employees advise a pimp and prostitute on how to evade tax laws? DISMANTLE THE CORRUPT COMPANY.

A few of your employees gang-rape another employee and then other employees cover up any evidence of the crime? JUST A FEW BAD APPLES. DON'T HOLD THE COMPANY ACCOUNTABLE.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2009 1:04:46 PM

Why should one be able to sue a company if their co-workers commit a crime against them again?

"the company tried to cover it up" is bullshit. Specific people in the company tried to cover it up. Sue them and charge them with crimes.

10/15/2009 1:04:54 PM

^
I think the big question is where do we draw the line between the company and the individual?

10/15/2009 1:09:39 PM

^^ The company circulated a memo saying it disagreed with portions of her testimony. If the company was interested in cooperating, they would have, wouldn't they?

10/15/2009 1:10:32 PM

I don't think they should be able to prevent any type of lawsuit. You can't void personal responsibility with a contract. Even though the clause was thrown out in this case, other cases could be different. Corruption is far too rampant to leave the decision up to the courts.

10/15/2009 1:18:20 PM

If a crime has been commited no contract clause will override it.

10/15/2009 1:23:36 PM

Even if you're right, it discourages/intimidates employees from bringing the case to court.

10/15/2009 1:30:48 PM

gang rape? i guess i'm a republican from here on out! ha

10/15/2009 1:32:36 PM

lulz...This shit didn't even happen in America, the clause was ruled worthless in court, and we still made a law about it?

Quote :

"A few of your employees advise a pimp and prostitute on how to evade tax laws? DISMANTLE THE CORRUPT COMPANY. A few of your employees gang-rape another employee and then other employees cover up any evidence of the crime? JUST A FEW BAD APPLES. DON'T HOLD THE COMPANY ACCOUNTABLE. "

::facepalm::
If you can't prove your point I guess it is safe to whine about something completely unrelated.

10/15/2009 1:34:26 PM

Quote :

"Even if you're right, it discourages/intimidates employees from bringing the case to court."

As evidenced by.....the case in question where the woman still went to court despite the clause?

10/15/2009 1:39:48 PM

Thanks for the info God. I kinda remembered this from a couple years ago. Its ashame, no doubt. People should be in jail.

10/15/2009 2:08:36 PM

So what did the whole bill say? Somehow I doubt the entire text was:

"Section XYZ Paragraph QPR is Ammended to Include:
"In cases of gang rape by co-worker, wherein the employing company was complacent in attempting to cover up the crime, mandatory arbitration clauses are null and void."

Of course, if that was the entire text of the bill, then yes, all these people are idiots. But somehow I doubt that.

10/15/2009 2:15:57 PM

Quote :

"S.AMDT.2588 Amends: H.R.3326 Sponsor: Sen Franken, Al (submitted 10/1/2009) (proposed 10/1/2009) AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims. "

10/15/2009 2:24:30 PM

Quote :

"To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims. "

Man I love the internet.

Regarding certain claims? What the fuck does that mean Franken? This is just saying do away with mandatory arbitration all together.

http://thomas.loc.gov
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.3326



[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 2:28 PM. Reason : ^damn you!]

10/15/2009 2:27:00 PM

^ it really is amazing what google can do for you

10/15/2009 2:30:23 PM

http://www.hulu.com/watch/102324/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-oct-14-2009#s-p1-so-i0

This thread was obviously inspired by Jon Stewart... Start watching at 8:47 to hear it explained by a real satirist.

10/15/2009 2:31:46 PM

10/15/2009 2:38:14 PM

This reminds me of the McDonalds case where the girl sued the corporation 6 Million Dollors because her manager's boyfriend raped her.

If a company is found to have attempted to coverup a rape by some its employees; then the victim may have a case (Those attempting to do the cover up would face criminal charges too). Simply getting raped by a co-worker though does not justify you getting a $30 Million dollor settlement. Why should the stock holders and your coworkers get punished b.c your lower level manager or fellow associate is a rapist.

10/15/2009 4:22:31 PM

Quote :

"A few of your employees advise a pimp and prostitute on how to evade tax laws? DISMANTLE THE CORRUPT COMPANY."

Dog, on what grounds? I'm sure some Republicans said that, but doing so would be illegal and rightly so. What they did was cut federal funding for the company, as they should have done for Halliberton.

Quote :

"Employment clauses that prevent employees from bringing a civil or criminal suit against the company if coworkers commit crimes against the employee while the employee is at work should be illegal."

Why is it your intention to punish the innocent? Is it your opinion that in the event of a rape everyone should be punished just in case they may have had something to do with it? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

While it seems the company is guilty of a cover-up in this case, most of them are not. Which, as has been said, the company cannot eliminate liability for its own criminal actions in covering up the crime, so no law is necessary or could ever be necessary: 14th century case law took care of that.

That said, what's the deal with no convictions? I want more information. She was even examined by a doctor! Even if his notes were destroyed in the cover-up, the doctor himself was not. Get him before a grand jury and a warrant for whoever was on duty that night and start sending males to prison. One guy confessed, get him to role on the others.

10/15/2009 4:41:13 PM

i am a fan of anything that blocks mandatory arbitration, i fail to understand their problem with the legislation

10/15/2009 5:23:02 PM

^^ Happened in Iraq, not a lot of legal recourse there currently. Signing away liability does apply stateside, does it happen apply in a foreign country that doesn't have the benefit 14th century British precedent to go back on? She's mostly been in court suing for the right to have a civil suit stateside.

An appeals court ruled in her favor recently, and people think that should end it since OF COURSE no appeals court has EVER been overruled.

Franken's done what a senator is supposed to do. He's seen a problem and done something to fix it. It's not his fault that 30 Republicans managed to find some bs reasons to back the large contractor companies.

Of course, to be fair, she should be suing in Iraq, not here, but since they're basically a colony for the time being I guess where and when the rule of American or Iraqi law applies can get kinda fuzzy.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 5:37 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 5:36:38 PM

I would say it makes more sense to put anyone under the employ of the US under the jurisdiction of US law regardless of where they are. Contrators, subsidiaries, soldiers, etc... Give the local government first dibs if sufficient, otherwise ship the case back here.

10/15/2009 7:41:10 PM

Quote :

"This is just saying do away with mandatory arbitration all together. "

i'm ok with this

10/15/2009 7:47:04 PM

LoneSnark...chiming in with the crazy pro-business rhetoric.

Quote :

"The last thing you should do is punish the company, because the company is the property of shareholders, which I'd guess had no idea their employees had decided to enter into a criminal conspiracy. As such, the shareholders of the company were innocent of any wrong doing as they had no idea they were involved in a criminal enterprise. The same goes for the other employees that were unaware of the conspiracy but would lose their jobs if the government killed the company. We as a civilized society should not punish the innocent, even those that made the mistake of unwittingly employing or working for criminals. That is not to say shareholders are never at fault, as it is possible that they knew they were hiring managers with a propensity to kill hobos."

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 8:10 PM. Reason : face-palm]

10/15/2009 7:59:06 PM

But it's still incredibly expensive, even if the suit is dismissed. Arbitration is less expensive.

10/15/2009 8:09:02 PM

may be cheaper but it screws the complainant

10/15/2009 8:12:31 PM

How so? Sure, they may have to travel to the designated place of arbitration but personal jurisdictional issues would usually cover that anyways. And arbitration clauses can still be deemed void by the courts if they're challenged and are found to be contrary to public policy or not sufficiently agreed to. But in general they're faster, cheaper, and more confidential than the courts.

And for what it's worth

Quote :

"Matters relating to crimes, status and family law are generally not considered to be arbitrable, as the power of the parties to enter into an agreement upon these matters is at least restricted."

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 8:19 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2009 8:14:16 PM

if another employee at my company raped me, i don't see how the company would be liable.

10/15/2009 8:19:58 PM

Quote :

"I would say it makes more sense to put anyone under the employ of the US under the jurisdiction of US law regardless of where they are. Contrators, subsidiaries, soldiers, etc... Give the local government first dibs if sufficient, otherwise ship the case back here."

I might be able to get behind that

10/15/2009 8:25:52 PM

But they were not under the employ of the U.S. Government. They were contractors working for a corporation. I guess it is the case that criminal charges should have been brought in Iraq.

That said, I thought we already had federal statutes making it a crime to travel overseas to perform activities which would be felonies if performed here. Maybe they could be charged for that.

I believe Halliburton to be innocent in this case. However, her boss and everyone else working there at the time should be held liable. Did her contract wave her right to sue her coworkers or just the company? The point should be achieving justice, and putting the criminals and their families in bankruptcy court would help a little bit. Maybe we should all donate to her legal fund.

10/16/2009 1:23:46 PM

Because she's good enough, she's smart enough, and dog gone it, people like her.

10/16/2009 1:29:12 PM

Speaking of Burr, I just got an e-mail saying this:

Quote :

"Burr hypocrisy exposed When a student takes credit for something he or she didn't do, it's called plagiarism. When Richard Burr does it, it's just politics as usual. But several national and state media outlets exposed Burr's hypocrisy on the federal stimulus this week when the Republican attempted to take credit for a project funded through the federal stimulus, which he voted against in February. He presented a check for a $2 million federal stimulus grant to the Bethlehem Community Volunteer Fire Department to help build a new fire station, saying, "this is a great thing for this country" and "we're not accustomed to federal dollars in that magnitude finding their way to North Carolina." Burr, however, has been an outspoken critic of the stimulus, even telling a small business group in Tarboro in August that, "it's almost criminal how much of the stimulus was not stimulative for local economies around the country." His duplicity did not go unnoticed by the media. Outlets ranging from The Hill and Think Progress, to the Associated Press and Raleigh News & Observer ran articles. Senate Guru capped the media coverage on Wednesday with an article in The Huffington Post titled, "Eight Ways Richard Burr Displayed Poor Judgment, a Lack of Integrity, and Utter Contempt for Others.""

10/23/2009 3:24:01 PM

Precisely what does this have to do even the debatable premise of this thread, aside from providing you for a flimsy pretext to re-post anti-Burr talking points from yet another of your Democratic mailing lists, as you are often wont to do?

10/23/2009 3:31:55 PM