Franken's First Amendment Passes Senate

Franken's amendment stops defense contractors from receiving federal funding if they use mandatory arbitration clauses that prevent victims of assault from going to court.

While I agree that litigation is misused and overused, the excerpt above, along with both of the following excerpts from a different article (link below) state that basically she signed away her right to seek civil damages. If we're relying on these articles to be accurate, then that is different from a requirement to first go to arbitration, and if not a satisfactory outcome, to litigation.

"Senator Al Franken pushed through an amendment on Tuesday that is designed to withhold defense contracts from companies like Halliburton if they prohibit their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.

After her safe return to the United States, she learned a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court, instead forcing her into an "arbitration" process that would be conducted by KBR itself."

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212260731.shtml

Knowing a little bit about these types of clauses from having had to negotiate terms and conditions with subcontractors and defense contractors, and knowing a little bit about the general laziness of reporters and editors to actually verify ANY facts rather than just accepting talking points at face value, I am extremely confident that the following phrases from the story(that you emphasized) are extremely INACCURATE:

"... prevent victims of assault from going to court."
"they prohibit their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."
"a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court"

No contract clause can prohibit you from filing charges for assault if you are the victim of assault. Such a clause would be illegal. Also, while contract clauses can limit your ability to sue your employer until you have first sought remedies via arbitration, such clauses cannot prohibit you from pursuing your further legal remedies once you have gone through the required arbitration process.

Thank you for the clarification. By signing the contract the young woman (and all of their other employees) agreed to use arbitration first if the need to pursue legal remedies ever occured.

Shame on the media for misrepresenting (as usual) a very serious issue. They saw the potential to prey on the emotions of readers, and used this young woman's sad story to make defense contractors "like Halliburton" the bad guys by distorting the facts. As usual.

Even a brocken clock is right....well you know the rest. And that is certainly the case here. The fact that not ONE Republican voted in favor of this amendment is sickening. This is a complete no-brainer, slam dunk, no argument needed.

If a person alleges gang rape, the evidence needs to be heard and if a jury concludes it occurred, civil recourse HAS to be made available. Denial of this recourse is as un-American as well....Al Franken. Yes, the irony is thick in this amendment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.