Good.

Uh oh, Tracy don't accept any offers to go hunting with DICK. Seperating a neocon from what they view as their god given money is a severe trauma sure to enduce tantrums and plots against her life.

Better use the remote starter on your car for a while.

Good, but the original employment "agreement" should have been thrown out. Maybe now is the time to post the 30 Senate Republicans that voted to maintain this immoral legal contract? Someone should ask John McCain explain his vote.

"True to form, Cheneyburton is fighting it's own "binding arbitration" trying to get the amount lowered."

They have a legal obligation to their shareholders to do so until our representatives change the laws obligating them to appeal.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

They have a legal obligation to their shareholders to do so until our representatives change the laws obligating them to appeal.

Then it's not binding arbitration. It's arbitration. There is no recourse in binding arbitration (Collateral Estoppel,Res Judicata).

"Collateral Estoppel"

I don't think this is a such a case. This is an appeal. From wiki:

sorry about the bold error.

So a government worker rapes someone working for a corporation and she sues the corporation. Amazing stuff.

So a government worker rapes someone working for a corporation and she sues the corporation. Amazing stuff.

In her lawsuit, Barker had claimed while working in the companies' procurement department in Baghdad, she was housed in mostly male barracks and consistently subjected to sexually explicit comments and verbal and physical threats of abuse. Barker claimed she and other employees complained to the companies but they did nothing and instead retaliated against her.

Barker was later transferred to Basra, where she claimed that in June 2005, she was raped in her room by the State Department employee, who she also sued. That case was transferred to federal court in Virginia, where it was formally settled last week. Details of the settlement were not made public.

Looks like she filed the suit against the right people.

the original employment "agreement" should have been thrown out.

Why? Was she prejudiced by the arbitration requirement? Given the amount of this award, I'd say no.

How do you contractually agree to be a crime victim?

Rape is a tad more than the usual pay, promotion or harrassment issues that arbitration was designed for.

How do you contractually agree to be a crime victim?

Where did you learn to read?

Shouldn't the government employee that raped her be in jail? I'm not saying, I'm just saying, the article says she "settled" the suit with the government employee that raped her.... Can you "settle" in criminal suits?

Where's the article about government employees raping private contractors in Iraq?

I'll bet there are a few here on the DR that would gladly handle a good gang banging...

...for $3 million dollars.

Shouldn't the government employee that raped her be in jail?

As the Republican mantra went when it came to rape,murder and theft-"What happens in Basra, stays in basra."

Good.

#1 | Posted by Lisa

So........ the company you work for is liable if you are raped by someone working for the State Department? Sounds to me the employee of the Federal Government should have to be held liable, not KBR.

Yeah. I don't follow. If I work at McDonald's and get raped walking home after work, is it the fault of McDonald's?

This chick saw a paycheck. More likely, some wiley lawyer saw a paychack and convinced her to sue. No biggie for KBR, they just jack up the rathes they charge the government, in order to better hedge against these same possibilities in the future. Ultimately, it will be the taxpayers that cover the cost of this gal's $3 million dollar payday.

We should all get 3 million. Becasue they bent over the American tax payer and gave it to us good.

#18 We didn't even get dinner.

Yeah. I don't follow. If I work at McDonald's and get raped walking home after work, is it the fault of McDonald's?

Did McDonald's arrange housing in a dorm filled with men? When you complained about the sexually explicit comments and verbal and physical threats of abuse, did McDonald's turn ignore it?

Ultimately, it will be the taxpayers that cover the cost of this gal's $3 million dollar payday.

We've already paid for it. Cost-plus and No-Bid contracts awarded to KBR and Halliburton have drained the treasury while filling their coffers.

I'm sure while she was being fucking raped the only thing she could think of were dollar signs.

Northguy -

Sorry, I am unaware of the rapist's political affiliation. I am also unaware that your mantra has changed in the past several months.

"and gave it to us good"

I believe they still are, are they not?

Unfortunately yes they are.

Yeah. I don't follow. If I work at McDonald's and get raped walking home after work, is it the fault of McDonald's?

this was at work. If this occured all in the US then there is nothing that really protects KBR as they were her employer. They can be sued by an employee for anything that occurs.

I don't know that this employment contract really changes things (I'm only looking at this through the eyes of an insurance man).

Sounds to me the employee of the Federal Government should have to be held liable, not KBR.

I would argue they both are.

I would argue they both are.

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2009-11-20 02:45 PM | Reply |

This would be correct. KBR had an obligation to provide her safety. When she complained to them, they then had a responsibility to resolve the situation.

Instead of making reasonable efforts to do just that, they retaliated. And they probably retaliated because they didn't want to lose whatever business they had with the government worker. Not to mention the bad press. To say the woman had nothing but dollars in here eyes while simultaneously ignoring KBR's financial interest is just fucking lower than dirt. Whoever came up with that is a scumbag.

If this was the US there would be several people in jail right now.

Shouldn't the government employee that raped her be in jail? I'm not saying, I'm just saying, the article says she "settled" the suit with the government employee that raped her.... Can you "settle" in criminal suits?

The rape occurred in Iraq. Our occupiers in Iraq were largely exempted from Iraqi law. So, while a crime may have occurred, there is no legal mechanism to bring the criminals to justice.

This is by design.

From the article, Last month, the Senate approved a measure prohibiting the Defense Department from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration.

This was Al Franken's first piece of legislation. "We don't do business with companies that bar their workers from prosecuting on-the-job rape" -- sounds like a slam-dunk, wouldn't you think? But it was nearly a party-line split. Most of the Republicans voted against it. It isn't surprising they care more about profits than justice, but they're so brazenly open about it.

"Did McDonald's arrange housing in a dorm filled with men?"

Yes. They should have hired a buch of local Iraqi women to play the role as KBR employees to even out the man/woman ratio. Or maybe they should have built her a separate, women only dorm. In either case, this it was a situation she was aware of, and had she been uncomfortable with it, she should have left.

"This would be correct. KBR had an obligation to provide her safety."

She was in a war zone. Does KBR have an obligation to provde for the safety of all employees? If so, it would seem to me that the families of all KBR employees killed in Iraq would have much stronger lawsuits than this woman did.

Under the UCMJ rape during a time of war is punishable by death, and if they stuck the State Dept in front of a firing squad, so be it. But the begs an even better question. Where is the rapist? More importantly, and it's not defined here, was he found guilty of rape? According to the headline, she only claimed she was raped. Based on the information provided here, there never was any criminal suit filed against the attacker, only a civil suit. the details of which have been withheld. Curious.

A few years ago there was a case where a female cadet at the Air Force Academy was being brought up on charges that she had violated the institutions's code of ethics. During the hearings, she made the claim that, as a freshman (she was an upper classman at this point, she had been raped by a senior. That senior had gone on to graduate and was in pilot training in Missisppi. he was pulled out of class and placed on an administrative hold while the Air Force investigated. Meanwhile, the charges against the female cadet were substaniated, and she was kicked out of the Air Force. It was later determined that she was using the rape claim as a means of deflecting attention away from her own actions, and on to someone else. Four years later, the accused rapist, was finally cleared. Of course by this point he was four years behind the rest of his peers. His career, not to mention his reputation, had been severly damaged by a woman who under oath had admitted that she could see how he could have contrued it to be consensual sex...becuase she had provided consent.

"When she complained to them, they then had a responsibility to resolve the situation."

But so did she. In my line of work, if I feel that my job will put me in an unsafe situation, I call kings X. Not going to do it. She could have been on the next flight out of Baghdad. for whatever reason, she was not. maybe KBR should sue her for costing them $2.93 in legal fees...

"Whoever came up with that is a scumbag."

Uh, it was me who came up with it, and given my experience with rape in these kinds of situations, this woman had ample opportunity to squash any sort of serious problem. Since I'm already a dirtbag, I'm going to play the devil's advocate and offer another, not unsubstantiated possiblity.

This lady signs on to go to Baghdad as a contractor. While there, she suddenly finds herself the object of the advances of one or more men, something she may not be used to, and something she finds quite flattering. One night she is hanging out with a new friend, and things get a little heated. They end up having sex. Being a married woman, she instantly regrets the move, confessing to her husband while claiming that it was forced.

If she was raped, why not file a criminal complaint? if it were me, my wife, or one of my two daughters, I would rather see the guy put in jail than have to pay me a currently undisclosed sum of money. Many State Dept guys are Ivy League grads with no shortage of cash. They can afford to rape if the only cost is monetary. It's unliekly that profit was ever a motivating factor for this woman, more likely she just wanted to convince her husband that the sex hadn't been consensual, and that she had reamined faithful.

This is a story you hear on college campuses all the time. Freshmen girls go to their first frat party, get drunk, hook up, and then realize they've cheated on the highschool boyfriend that they'd sworn they were in love with. Unable to confess that it had been consensual, they claim that the fratboy used undue coersion in the hope that said boyfriend would be more forgiving. Until they do the exact same thing again.

I actually went and googled this. The department of Justics actually declined to prosecute the alleged rapist.

I don't know that KBR could have done anything other than physically extricate her from the situation. They certainly don't have any authority or control of DoS employees.

I understand what you are saying. I only know what I know based on normal private employers with locations here in the US and how employer liability works.

Foreign Country?
Fed Govt employees?
Special contract with the govt in a warzone?

no help here.

Sorry, I am unaware of the rapist's political affiliation.

Doesn't have anything to do with it. The Administration's position was staff and mercenaries answered to no law. The worst anyone faced was being sent back to the U.S.

Guess what assbags, BHO is doing business with HB as we speak.

U.S.Taxpayer Will Foot the Bill...Yet Again!

After the $Billions that Cheney's Halliburton easily "Ripped Off" the American Taxpayers for in Iraq.....3 million shouldn't be a big problem...especially since its really going to be the U.S.Taxpayer money that will provide the gold for Haliburton's fine!!!

Are they referring to the American taxpayer?

Excuse Money.

More importantly, and it's not defined here, was he found guilty of rape? According to the headline, she only claimed she was raped. Based on the information provided here, there never was any criminal suit filed against the attacker, only a civil suit. the details of which have been withheld. Curious.

Holy crap. You just don't get it do you?

You know why criminal charges were never filed? Noone has legal standing to pursue criminal charges against the attacker. The crime didn't take place in America, and it wasn't perpetrated by a soldier subject to UCMJ. You want this to go through the Iraqi courts or something?

Only soldiers faced any punishment for Abu Ghraib, and only because of the UCMJ. The other people involved in the torture, civilian government employees and government contractors, they are beyond the reach of the law.

"Curious" is one way to put it. "A Kafkaesque nightmare" is another. Par for the course, from the masterminds that brought us Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation.

This was Al Franken's first piece of legislation. "We don't do business with companies that bar their workers from prosecuting on-the-job rape" -- sounds like a slam-dunk, wouldn't you think? But it was nearly a party-line split. Most of the Republicans voted against it. It isn't surprising they care more about profits than justice, but they're so brazenly open about it.

News to Spud.

Kudos to Al.

Nice werk on this thread, Snoofy.

Be Well.

When you steal billions, 3 million is a traffic ticket.

"You know why criminal charges were never filed? Noone has legal standing to pursue criminal charges against the attacker. The crime didn't take place in America, and it wasn't perpetrated by a soldier subject to UCMJ. You want this to go through the Iraqi courts or something?"

Really? So Americans can legally harm, kill, or injure other Americans, and provided that it doesn't occur within the borders of the US it remains outside US jurisdiction? Are you sure about that? If so, then I guess Gabe Watson, the guy that killed his wife while honeymooning in Australia, needn't worry about the charges that Alabama prosecutors are planning to levy against him. In fact, someone needs to tell them that they are not allowed to prosecute crimes that didn't directly take place on US soil.

Anyway, I'm being a smartass. Of course the DoJ could prosecute the crime. In fact they were given the option to do so, with the encouragement of the state department. They elected not to. Just like in the case of Gabe Watson. or the attack on the African Embassies, or the attack on the USS Cole, etc.

This is all just a Rant against Halliburton. If Mrs. Barker had worked for Doctors without Borders or MSNBC and filed this lawsuit, you would all be bitching about how she just wanted money.

So Americans can legally harm, kill, or injure other Americans, and provided that it doesn't occur within the borders of the US it remains outside US jurisdiction?

Can't they? This Gabe Watson thing is a stretch,

Officials in King's office have said if investigators find evidence that Gabe Watson plotted in Alabama to kill his wife, and then carried the plan out in Australia, he could be prosecuted here.

Chris Bence, King's chief of staff, said, "We feel like a murder occurred in another country and the murderer is sill in that country. But if any part of the murder occurred here, we have jurisdiction to pursue it here."

Bence said he did not know how long an investigation might take. "This is a pioneer effort. We're in uncharted territory."

So how much is Halliburton paying the rest of the country for being raped by them?

" If Mrs. Barker had worked for Doctors without Borders or MSNBC and filed this lawsuit, you would all be bitching about how she just wanted money."

You are out of your mind. You do know that don't you????

Obviously in this case the women deserved to be vindicated. Good for her.

That the law al franken passed, incredibly bad. Another catch all phrased bill to make trial lawyers have wet dreams.

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,

Sounds practical doesn't it? Until you look at the negl hiring, supervision, or retention. That covers most all situations for most all companies.

trial lawyers cheer boldly

So a person's boss 'supposedly' says a joke from Seinfeld, and employee felt 'sexual harassment'.......... and says that's why she was neglected in regards to

1. Hiring or,

2. How supervised

3. Firing

Trial lawyer calls up company and says, remember that person that worked there years ago??????? You owe her

5 MILLION DOLLARS

Fuck those greedy companies, and any for profit biz. What the fuck good are those greedy bastard sob's????