• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Not sure what to make of this

No one forced her to work for Haliburton....maybe she should have read the fine print? :dunno:

Doesn't make it right, or justify anything....seems to me it is just more partisan banter...
 
seems to me it is just more partisan banter...

I disagree. I don't believe ANY company (I don't care who it is) should be protected from lawsuits involving rape or any other behavior which puts the employee's health and safety at risk. If the author's information is accurate, the Halliburton clause created a loophole in which employees knew they could get away with assualt and rape without any repercussion. No justice in that scenario in my mind.
 
Tragic that this happened to her, hope the scumbags were procecuted to the full extent of the law.

Shifting gears, why is legislation being written up to allow any company to be sued for the illegal activity of an employee?
Unless the employee handbook states that you can rape your co-workers, they have no sexual harrassment policy, or a reported sexually harrassment incident escalated to rape because the employer didn't fire the violator......... how is an employer responsible for the illegal actions of an employee?

As I read this, Halliburton is to blame for their subcontractors employees commiting a rape?

This is like trying to hold Disney financially responsible for the illegal actions of an employee of ABC.
 
As I read this, Halliburton is to blame for their subcontractors employees commiting a rape?

This is like trying to hold Disney financially responsible for the illegal actions of an employee of ABC.

Only thing I can think of is "Deep Pockets".

Metrolink in SOCAL settle lawsuits from a 2004 or 05 train wreck where a person attempted suicide by parking on the tracks. The engineer hit emergency and the train derailed killing 11 or 12 on board. This surely was the fault of the person deliberately parking on the tracks, not Metrolink. BTW the person who attempted suicide lived and was charged and found guilty of 11 (or 12) counts of homicide and sentence to consecutive life terms.

but Haliburton and subcontractor was able to place a type of "Tort Reform" in their contracts.
 
As I read this, Halliburton is to blame for their subcontractors employees commiting a rape?

That's not what I got out of it. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it appears she's trying to go after Halliburton for trying to cover up the incident and disposing of evidence. She is also trying to directly go after one of the individuals responsible in the assault whom she has positively identified. The clause in the contract supposedly prevents her from suing either. Am I interpreting it wrong? :dunno:

"Jones, who was employed by KBR, which was fighting oil fires, says that a pattern of subsequent behaviour by the firm, including allegedly locking her in a container under armed guard and losing forensic evidence, amounts to a cover-up. Halliburton/KBR used a clause in her contract requiring disputes to be settled by arbitration to block legal action – a policy which, her lawyer says, has encouraged assaults by creating a climate of impunity."

"She says the firm placed her under guard in a shipping container and she was released only after her father asked the US embassy to intervene. When the forensic evidence was handed to investigators two years later, crucial photographs and notes were missing. Jones says she identified one of the men who attacked her after he confessed, but that Halliburton/KBR prevented her from taking legal action against him or the company by pointing to a clause in her contract requiring disputes to go to arbitration."


And yes, she should read the fine print. But think about how that clause is probably written and worded. Do you really think she would have made the connection of, "Based on what this says I better make sure I don't get raped or assaulted because I won't be able to sue my attackers if they are fellow co-workers?"

She told a Senate committee: "I had no idea that the clause was part of the contract, what the clause actually meant, or that I would eventually end up in this horrible situation."
 
No, it isn't Haliburton's fault she got raped....didn't you read the article, it is Dick Cheney's fault...

THAT is why I called this partisan banter - it happens both ways - but more often than not, one way more than another. Just like you had Cindy Sheehan blaming Bush for her son being killed in Iraq (I believe).

Do you hear people blaming Obama when someone dies in the middle east today?

One side likes to point fingers and take no responsibility....wait...no, that's both sides :D
 
Typical liberal B.S. After what liberals have done to our country, who can believe anything that comes out of their mouths. They lie, lie, lie, and hate our country and do nothing but try to bring it down. They can't be trusted and I don't know if this story is real or another lie.
 
Typical liberal B.S. After what liberals have done to our country, who can believe anything that comes out of their mouths. They lie, lie, lie, and hate our country and do nothing but try to bring it down. They can't be trusted and I don't know if this story is real or another lie.

Um, it's real.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/defence-contractors-rape-claim-block

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4027734&page=1&page=1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-11-halliburton-rape_N.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105153315

Shall I keep going?
 
Come on Brad you know that the conservative owned liberal media you link to isn't telling the truth.
 
That's not what I got out of it. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it appears she's trying to go after Halliburton for trying to cover up the incident and disposing of evidence. She is also trying to directly go after one of the individuals responsible in the assault whom she has positively identified. The clause in the contract supposedly prevents her from suing either. Am I interpreting it wrong? :dunno:
That's what I got out of it too - my first reading resulted in me understanding it how XJEEPER did, my second reading through I realized she was going after them to get the evidence/etc.
 
I wasn't aware that rape fell in the scope of Haliburton employment. I think I'll go get an application...

In all seriousness, isn't that the test for business liability for employee actions? If they're acting within the scope of their employment, they're liable. If not... the business isn't involved.
 
I think the reason she's suing them is more to get them to stop covering it up - apparently they "lost" critical evidence, probably to protect their employees and reputation, which ironically is doing exactly the opposite for their reputation.
 
I think the reason she's suing them is more to get them to stop covering it up - apparently they "lost" critical evidence, probably to protect their employees and reputation, which ironically is doing exactly the opposite for their reputation.

What evidence? Why is Haliburton gathering evidence for rape cases? They are not law enforcement?
 
As I understand it, contract employees all live together in a dormitory compound.

So should a university be sued if one student rapes another in the dorms?
 
Depends if it is a liberal or conservative friendly university.....

Conservative, then yes....

Liberal, of course not....
 
Students are not employees, i.e. agents or representatives of the company and if I am not sure but there maybe some cases where universities have been sued. Just dunno.
 
Back
Top