x

Please Login




Register Here!

On Politics, We Can Always See the Whites of Their Eyes.

 Search:  
Login / Register   About Us   Advertise   Contact Us  
RSS Feed

The Patriot Room

Franken Amendment not about rape - it's about another giveaway to lawyers

by: Clyde Middleton   posted: 2009-10-21 15:37:00
Viewed 553 times. 6 Comments.

Sometimes the dems know no bottom to the cesspool within which they live. Franken offers an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill. It stems from the awful case of Jamie Leigh Jones who was allegedly sexually abused while working for contractor Halliburton/KBR in Iraq.

Seems simple enough - nasty situation, let's make sure we address it. There was a perceived (but not actual - see below) waiver of rights due to a mandatory arbitration clause in the employment contract. So what does the Franken Amendment do? It bars the Defense Department from contracting with any company that requires arbitration to settle disputes with employees.

Hunh? Can't they address directly the issues of gross sexual misconduct and criminal sexual misconduct without benefiting third parties in the process? Is EVERYTHING they do have to be a pay-off to some interest group? Do they have ANY clue the history behind arbitration clauses and the good they do? Do they have to address a finite problem with a broad brush?

The Heritage Foundation’s James Sherk points out that despite Halliburton/KBR’s requirement, Jones hasn’t been prevented from seeking justice in the courts:

Given that Franken chose to highlight her case, you might assume that the courts ruled in Haliburton’s favor, and that she was not able to bring her claims in court instead of to an arbitrator. But then you would be wrong. The courts ruled that Halliburton could not arbitrate her claims of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, retention and supervision of employees involved in the assault, and false imprisonment.

What few know (and the libs certainly doesn’t want anyone to know) is the DoD opposed the amendment. This is from the message sent from DoD to the Senate:

DoD Position

Proposed Franken Amendment (# 2588) re: H.R. 3326 Prohibition against requiring arbitration of any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment.

• The DoD opposes the proposed amendment.

• The proposed amendment effectively would require debarment of any contractor or subcontractor or would require termination of any contract if the contractor or a subcontractor, at any tier, compels an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, to agree to the use of arbitration to resolve sexual harassment claims of all sorts. The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract.

• It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse

And for the Franken Amendment the libs tell us that the pubs are for rape (here and here and here and here and here and here)?!? How sadly contrived. The only party that will benefit from the Franken Amendment are trial lawyers. And the trials will be way beyond matters similar to that of Jamie Leigh Jones - every perceived wrong a trial lawyer can find will become a basis for a lawsuit.

This is a prime example of why the dems suck at leading. You got a problem, you fix the problem. Stop the wide nets.

Related Articles


Links to this post

Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/franken-amendment-not-about-rape-it-s-about-another-giveaway-to-lawyers/trackback

Comments 6

Simple Question on 2009-10-21 16:41:30

Can someone please explain to me what's bad about suing someone if they've raped you?

Or, alternatively, would you pledge now that if a close female relative were raped, you give up your right to sue?


Clyde on 2009-10-21 21:17:48

Dear Simple Question.

1. She was NOT blocked from suing anyone

2. The Franken Amendment does not remedy her situation because it needed no remedy - she could sue away. It is an age-old foundation of law that certain rights cannot be signed away in a contract.

3. The proposed fix covers ever single use of arbitration clauses in every single DoD contract applying to every single situation.

So your question, all due respect, is off point to both her situation and this article. Further, I have had my life touched more than once by rape, so please do not assign of lack of caring on the issue.


echidna on 2009-10-22 07:52:55

Clyde,

1. She WAS blocked from suing by KBR insisting on enforcing the arbitration clause, and even kept from reporting the crime. She has sued for the right to take her grievance to court, and has just (years later) won that right. KBR is appealing that decision, I believe.

2. KBR, by unjustly (and quite possibly illegally) trying to enforce arbitration where it really shouldn't be used, has shot itself in the foot, and quite possibly damaged the usefulness of arbitration. Arbitration can be a fast, accessible way of addressing grievances, but the secrecy provisions allow for abuse, as does mandatory enforcement. It is clear KBR has abused the process. The remedy is to keep arbitration as an available option for dispute resolution, but drop the secrecy provisions, and also keep it out of the employment contract. It is just too open to abuse, as KBR has amply demonstrated.

It is not Franken who has stuffed up - it is KBR.

3. Your point is not correct - the amendment applies to specific instances of civil rights only. A rider that arbitration cannot be enforced in certain situations is not too onerous.

If you are so sure that trial lawyers are the main beneficiaries here, then that demonstrates that there is insufficient regulation in your country, and that your standards are so ill-defined that everything needs to be tackled either in court or in secret arbitration.


Clyde on 2009-10-22 08:16:59

She didn't "win the right." She had it all along. The argument by her employer was that she did not have the right, that she waived it in her employment contract - and the court's said KBR was wrong.

Criminal law trumps contract law every time in America. No contract can prevent someone from a reporting a crime - it is repugnant to public policy, which vitiates the contract or that portion of it.

Concerning the text of the amendment, here it is in full: Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new

Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

1. "any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" is rather broad, and will be exploited. This remedy is not needed for this case.

2. Do you see anything in there that says she cannot report a crime? Of course not - because she always could.

3. What you do see in there is a list of torts well beyond anything this case dealt with.

The Franken remedy is out of bounds. Opposition has nothing to do with "supporting rape" as the clowns allege. Opposition is grounded in finding a problem and crafting an appropriate solution. This solution is not it.


Dan on 2009-12-02 21:38:06

So, we should continue to business with a company that behaves like KBR, then? What you are saying is "don't terminate their contract" even if they employ and condone rapists?


Clyde on 2009-12-02 22:43:49

If the amendment was as focused as your comment, then I'd have no issue with it. Unfortunately, the amendment was too broad. It did not provide a remedy focused on the perceived problem.


Have an opinion?

 Name (required)
 Email (required)
 Website

If you were a member you wouldn't have to input that stuff!


What is 2 + 3 ? (seriously... for moderates the answer is 4 and for liberals the answer is cat)

Note: Your comment may be held for moderation.

blog advertising is good for you

blog advertising is good for you

Publius' Newsstand

  • Sheriff Joe Arpaio Lends Fundraising Muscle to ...

    Following on the last story, this certainly will help.
    In his letter, being sent out to Arpaio supporters today as part of a 100,000-person national direct mail drop, the sheriff calls Hayworth's decision to challenge McCain "courageous." And he pledges to help Hayworth "every step of the way." "Senator McCain has served this country admirably but it's time to replace his moderate or even liberal positions on taxes, the border, social causes and big bank bailouts with a consistent conservative like J.D.," Arpaio continues. "After years of running over Republican principles his entire career no election year conversion to our way of thinking will save his campaign from voters that want conservatives to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem," he says.

      Views: 46 Comments: 0

  • From Right of Radio Dial, a Challenge to McCain...

    Not buying it, Senator McCain.
    McCain now finds himself jammed, moving starkly — and often awkwardly — to the right, apparently in an effort to gain favor among the same voters whom Mr. Hayworth, a consistent voice for the far right, could pull toward him like taffy come summer. McCain now sharply criticizes the bailout bill he voted for, pivoted from his earlier position that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility should be closed, offered only a muted response to the Supreme Court’s decision undoing campaign finance laws and backed down from statements that gays in the military would be O.K. by him... “John is undergoing a campaign conversion,” Mr. Hayworth said. Hayworth’s radio-personality bluster and big emotions.. may now have a part in the greater populist narrative that threatens many of the nation’s more centrist Republicans.

      Views: 31 Comments: 0

  • Defiant Iran accelerates nuclear program

    I thought Obama was going to talk these things over with his boy Mahmoud and smooth everything out. Instead, Ahmadinejad remains "defiant." How's that hope-y change-y working out for us?
    Iran said Tuesday that it had begun producing higher-grade enriched uranium, marking a new and potentially dangerous turn in Tehran's confrontation with the West over its nuclear ambitions... U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair told the House intelligence committee last week that "Iran has the scientific, the technical, the industrial capacity to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few years and eventually to produce a nuclear weapon. The central issue is a political decision by Iran to do so."

      Views: 31 Comments: 0

  • Reid's Jobs Bill will have "Republican Support"

    Looks like there's been some compromise here, as the GOP gets an extension of tax cuts that expired last year. I don't know if this is a good thing - I don't see much incentive for the GOP to do anything but obstruct the Dems at every possible point between now and November.
    I wouldn't want my fingerprints on anything this administration or congress proposes. Reid told reporters the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, and that it would include an extension of the tax breaks... Reid did not say how expensive the jobs bill would be. The Senate had been considering a package of roughly $80 billion. The House passed a larger jobs bill before Christmas, but now plans to unveil a different bill independent of that package, which did not garner Republican support.

      Views: 57 Comments: 0

  • Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of pass...

    Didn't realize the implications of Murtha's passing today, which include the following...
    Back in November, the House passed its health care bill by a narrow 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, the one Republican who voted for it — Joseph Cao — has indicated that he would not support the bill a second time around given the weaker language on abortion in the Senate version. In addition, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler already retired prematurely. Factor in Murtha’s death today, and Pelosi is down to 217 votes — one short of passage. To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she’ll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill.

      Views: 122 Comments: 1

  • Republicans and the Populist Temptation could T...

    A warning from my favorite economic analyst, Donald Luskin.
    Don't think that Republicans can't be sucked in when an anti-Wall Street lynch mob gets its blood up. Recall that Sarbanes-Oxley, the devastating antigrowth response in 2002 to the Enron and Worldcom scandals, was passed with virtually unanimous support by Republicans in Congress, and signed by a Republican president. Recall that last year 85 House Republicans voted for a 90% tax on bonuses for any employee of any bank that took more than $5 billion in TARP money. Investors got some good news last Friday. Stocks resisted following through on Thursday's sharp plunge after (Congress) reached an impasse on bank re-regulation. That's a nice down payment on what investors need a lot more of now: proof that the GOP won't join Democrats in a populist rush to seek revenge against Wall Street.

      Views: 78 Comments: 3

  • Message to Democrats: Wall St. Sends Cash to GO...

    Great news, but these guys were a little late in realizing that Obama wants to destroy all their corporations and confiscate their money. Not quite sure how they missed that.
    Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda. Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.

      Views: 78 Comments: 2

  • Dow closes below 10,000 for first time in 3 mon...

    The Dow sinks below a major psychological threshold.
    The Dow, down almost 104 points, had its 10th triple-digit move in 16 trading days. Shares of big banks pulled the market lower, extending a slump that has led to four straight weekly losses.
    I can't, for the life of me, understand why bank stocks would be dropping. Inexplicable.

      Views: 57 Comments: 2

  • Poll: Special interests more influential under ...

    Voters are now categorically rejecting every claim or promise made by this guy.... including democrats:
    Contrary to President Obama's promises, voters say special interests have more influence on the political process now than they did a year ago, according to a new poll. The poll, paid for by groups looking to curb the Supreme Court's recent campaign finance ruling, found that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say special interests have increased their influence since the president took office, and they say Mr. Obama has not done enough to fight back.

      Views: 59 Comments: 1

  • GOP leaders: Don't use current health bills for...

    Boehner and Cantor say the Pubs aren't going to be a part of any Presidential photo-op/dog-and-pony show:
    If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate,” the pair explained in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. They also said President Barack Obama should remove reconciliation from the table. Using budget reconciliation rules to move healthcare reform in the Senate would mean Democrats would only need 51 votes on procedural measures instead of 60... On Sunday afternoon however, Obama refused to say he would start from scratch.

      Views: 65 Comments: 2

Get Your PR Button!

Copyright © 2008-2009 Patriot Room Media, LLC
Privacy Policy  Terms Of Service