WTF? She was gang-raped and they sent her to arbitration? For what? Who was going to pay for the years of therapy she'd need?

I'm sorry, the ONLY thing that comes to mind is WTF?

@sanjsrik: She's just a no good hussy that was trying to extort money via the ebil trial lawyers from the upstanding Halliburton corporation. They, in no way, could have done anything to protect the tramp.

Okay, I've gotta stop. I think I'm going to throw up. Go read about the actual case (or even other cases of rape, including female service members) if you want to be sickened more.

As much as I'd love to see an arbitration fairness act, I have little hope of it ever seeing the light of day. Arbitration allows companies to avoid the law, and if there is one thing that this economic collapse has shown, it's that avoiding the law is a key business plan for most big corporations.

All of the industries of America will unite in a fleeting moment of solidarity and lobby hard to make sure this never passes.

@sanjsrik: Iraq was/is essentially run by the US (despite all the purple fingers). The adminstration at that time had very close ties to Halliburton (something about a former CEO who still had significant holdings). So even if there was some sort of overiding law in Iraq, it was not enforced. That's the problem when you have contractors in Iraq that aren't subject to the laws of any country. Contractors have killed a lot of civilians and even a few soldiers. But since they're not in the army and aren't subjec to US laws, they can get away with it.

@WraithSama:
Even if it never becomes a law, it is beneficial to bring attention to the problems with mandatory binding arbitration, because the only way you can find yourself in that situation is if you voluntarily accept it. If people would just stop agreeing to give up their right to sue, then companies would have to give up their mandatory binding arbitration clauses. I mean, the mandatory binding arbitration clause isn't going to do you any good if it costs you all of your customers/employees/franchisees/whatever.

I pray dearly for this legislation to pass, and not be neutered by congressmen who were purchased to fight it. The cynic in me thinks that a horrendous amount of money will be thrown at this bill, and it will die an ignoble, painful death.

We need this thing to pass so bad. Sigh.

This is the first I've heard of this story, and I'm trying to get caught up through the links this article posted. I'm having a hard time following what's going on, most specifically with the Overlaywered blogpost linked in one of the Consumerist articles. From that article I get the impression that this lady basically made up a lot of the details of this case and she's coming off as lying about most of it. But everything else I'm reading makes this story sound horrifying.

Is there something I'm missing here or should I go back and reread the linked articles a little more closely?

@El_Guapo: The rider that requires porn stores to be across the street with clear windows and mandatory advertisements will kill it.

Or it wont even get that far... yeah, probably not.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: That's certainly a noble goal. However, when mobile phone companies, cable companies, care companies etc. require it, are you supposed to simply go without? Yes, you could technically survive without those things. If someone has a gun to your head and tells you sign a contract, you still have a choice but just not a meaningful one. I few this as meaningful free choice versus technical free choice. If there are comparable companies in the market for what you're trying to get that don't require this, then yes, there is some responsibility on the consumer to make a wise decision.

I actually think M.B.A. should not be allowed in consumer contracts. In business to business contracts, its harder to justify, but would want to figure out a way to prevent small business owners and franchisee's from getting crushed under an MBA.

They should also work on certifying the bodies that provide MBA services. It eliminate biased awards, but perhaps reduce the number of them.

@korybing: I think the NPR quote:

"Heather Browne, director of communications at KBR, says that while the company can't speak to the facts since the case is ongoing, it denies any liability in the attack. And she argues that any dispute with Jones, even one involving charges of rape, must go to arbitration."

pretty much sums it up. This is a shadow law system created to protect businesses. The woman cannot just call the local police force since it is a US company but in a foreign land so the company is saying that the arbritation clause trumps US law. If this had happened on a company compound in the US, she would have been able to call the local police/sheriff or state police and gotten people arrested immediately.

Consumerist people/editors,
Thank you posting this information as I am completely against the shadow legal system created by companies. Every freaking time I have to send a letter "opting out" from yet another company's arbitration clause I hate it.

Big companies are supposed to arbitrate with other big companies, not with individual consumers. This is similar to a business using SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuits to keep people out of an issue.

([en.wikipedia.org])

Bravo!!!

@ARP: Most companies have a way to opt out though it forces the consumer to burden themselves with writing a snail mail letter and , if you really care, spending money to verify receipt since you know the company will have "lost" your non-verified receipt letter if you ever really need to sue...

Problem is that most consumers have no clue about what they are signing. I searched and an arbitration (or supporting) companies even have surveys proporting that consumers "want" binding arbitration to "reduce product costs due by reducing legal costs".

Yea right- look at this bunk: [www.adrforum.com]

The US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform can go jump in a lake.

If I remember correctly, she wasn't pushing a criminal action for which arbitration would be wholly inappropriate under any scenario. She was seeking monetary damages from her employer for failure to provide reasonable protection and decent working conditions. I would assume that her employment contract required all disputes with the employer to be submitted to binding arbitration. What I don't understand is why she didn't sue the perpetrators as well since they would not be protected from suit under the employment contract.

Also, I don't know why she didn't press criminal charges, assuming she had some evidence.

@ARP: That's what I don't understand. I'd love to see forced arbitration go away, but this woman's example makes no sense.

Halliburton was evil to just ignore the problem, but they didn't commit any crime and I'm not even sure it even COUNTS as a crime if one American does something illegal to another American in an ungoverned land. Just think of how many cruise ships travel out just far enough to be in international water so they can ignore the gambling laws.

@H3ion: She had a rape kit taken, which 'disappeared for a while' (conveniently, and for about two years). She had pictures of her injuries taken, which disappeared altogether- along with the notes of the Army doctor who treated her. The Army doc confirms her injuries, but due to the fact that there is no "proof" (even though the injuries to her breasts have permanently disfigured her), the Department of Justice is not willing to press charges. The icing on the cake is that while Jones does not know most of the men who raped her, one of the perpetrators confessed to her the next day. She has tried to press charges, and got nowhere. What a wonderful system that protects the guilty and punishes the innocent!

@xenth: Civil, not criminal.

@H3ion: Because she knows where the money is. Why sue the rapists when they might only have a few thou between them.

@xenth: Halliburton was working under American contract in American occupied land. US laws applied to them there as it would in Iowa or NY.

Speaking as a clinical social worker who's treated rape survivors, women have substantive and complex reasons for choosing not to prosecute their attackers....what bothers me is the backwards notion in this country that its okay to Blame the Victim, question her motives, etc etc. Happens a lot in domestic violence cases, too.

Please read the story before you blame the victim for not going through the supposed proper channels. The DOJ is refusing to press charges, and Halliburton took no action. If she no longer has access to the rape kit evidence, she has little chance of proving rape in a criminal investigation.

It's also difficult to press charges in a jurisdiction in which your employer is responsible, in part, for providing law and order. The US judicial system isn't designed to handle cases with contractors operating in foreign countries with American civilians working in a war zone. She's not military personnel, so she doesn't have that protection, and she's not an Iraqi civilian, so she is not able to go to their police force (not that that would be a good idea).

Halliburton also obviously has terrible rules about what happens when an employee is accused of a crime (with, in this case, ample proof), as they let the accused perpetrators REMAIN ON THE JOB, thereby threatening the safety of other women.

From the story:
"One of them gave her a drink. She took two sips, and Jones says that was the last thing she remembered.

...Jones had been raped, repeatedly. By how many men, she's not sure. But she says one man was still naked and asleep in the room when she came to. "Apparently, he knew he was beyond the reach of any jurisdiction, so he was still brazen enough to be there," she says.

Jones was escorted by security to the company clinic for a rape examination. When the rape kit examination was done, the evidence was turned over to Halliburton security.

...It has been four years since the attack, and despite the physical and circumstantial evidence, the Department of Justice has declined to investigate.

..."I want corporate accountability," she says. "I was so brutalized that I'm going to have to remember this the rest of my life. And Halliburton was so uncompassionate that they even let the men work there, still, after I went home.""

@henwy: See my response below. Victim blaming is BULLSHIT. Read the article, and maybe you'll figure out what's going on.

@H3ion: RTFA?

She no longer have access to the rape kit and since the crime took place in Iraq, a legal vacuum, the DOJ is not pressing charge, neither is Halliburton. Way to blame the victim.

@Quill2006: In addition, the guys accused of raping her still work for Halliburton.

I am surprised no one has sued the arbitration firms yet. If, contractually, you cannot sue your employer, don't you have an expectation that the arbitrator will be fair and unbiased? Even the threat of discovery might make the firms wise up.

Business Week ran a cover story on on banks using MBA:
[www.businessweek.com]
Quote:
The firm goes out of its way to tell creditors they probably won't have to tussle with debtors in arbitration. The September, 2007, NAF presentation informs companies that in cases in which an award or order is granted, 93.7% are decided without consumers ever responding. Only 0.3% of consumers ask for a hearing; 6% participate by mail.
The lawsuit cites state records showing that NAF handled 33,933 collection arbitrations in California from January, 2003, through March, 2007. Of the 18,075 that weren't dropped by creditors, otherwise dismissed, or settled, consumers won just 30, or 0.2%, the suit alleges. "NAF has done an end run around the law to strip consumers of their right to a fair collection process," Herrera says in an interview.

@mathfeel: I did read the article, as well as articles in the legal press. No intention to blame the victim. Far from it. I just wanted to understand why she wouldn't pursue all legal remedies. The rape kit is one piece of evidence. It is not dispositive when the testimony of the hospital workers who took the test can be obtained. The idea is to nail the perpetrators in every way possible. It's even possible that a public trial of the perpetrators, whether civil or criminal, wouldn't be so embarrassing to Haliburton that they might not do the right thing.

You.. I... congratulations! You just broke Alex Awesome's mind! You win something!

@xenth:

They are at fault because they covered it up - first, after the rape occurred, they put her in a shipping container under guard without medical attention, and took her phone away. She was able to borrow a phone from a sympathetic guard and called her father who got her congressman involved - the only way she got out.

Second, the army did a rape kit as part of their investigation after the congressman got her away from Halliburton/KBR, and they GAVE the rape kit to KBR which promptly and conveniently "mislaid" it. The rape kit has never surfaced again. No one has been prosecuted in this case.

Finally, they have a duty to their employees to keep the employees from harm, and they have a duty to investigate who they are hiring to ensure the safety of their employees.

So yes, Halliburton/KBR is at fault and deserves to be sued.

@sanjsrik: I suspect she went the civil route for at least 2 reasons - 1, she believes that Halliburton neglected her safety and the safety of other workers, and they should pay for that. Besides not protecting her, they also continue to employ the men that raped her. And 2, in order to bring attention to her case and the fact that no one has been charged in the crime. Seeing as her story is on NPR, the Consumerist, and numerous other media outlets, it seems to be working. I hope it helps, although I don't know what the holdup is on the criminal side of things.

@korybing: I wouldn't believe anything that blog author says. He's a fucking liar. That guy says that mandatory binding arbitration HELPS consumers and that arbitrators will never unfairly side with a business, even though they are selected and paid for by the business, and will not be selected again if they rule in favor of the consumer. Then he makes up a bunch of fake statistics about how mandatory binding arbitration is so WONDERFUL.

@H3ion:
I'm not sure what you mean. Individuals cannot charge someone with a crime. That would be up to the DOJ. The only actions an individual can initiate are civil actions.

It's also obvious from TFA that she doesn't have any forensic evidence -- that evidence is possessed by KBR.

@ARP:
"That's certainly a noble goal. However, when mobile phone companies, cable companies, care companies etc. require it, are you supposed to simply go without? Yes, you could technically survive without those things."
I think that's a big problem right there. Separating wants from needs. I've lived most of my years without a cell phone or cable TV. I've met people who grew up without a TV at all, and they turned out just fine. No one needs those things; they are luxury items. I think it could be argued that some sort of access to the public telephone network is important in today's society, when it comes to looking for a job or something like that, but I'd say it's entirely possible to live with a phone, and very easily to live without a cellular phone. Wireline phone service works as well as it always has and doesn't require these kinds of unconscionable agreements. Cable TV is completely unnecessary.