(no subject)

[winterbadger]

Thanks to fionnabhar for highlighting this.

Senate vote prohibiting funds from going to contractors who prohibit employees from suing them for "sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention".

fionnabhar provides a summary of the case that caused Sen. Franken to submit the amendment. It passed, but it had a lot of conservative, white, Southern men voting against it. Apparently they think that what happened is acceptable, or at least not as objectionable as not allowing employers who behave this way to be kept from getting federal funds. I can only hope (without much confidence) that this will disgust enough of their constituents that they will change their minds.

Comments

OK, but...

[bokospad.livejournal.com]

Gotta be the upteenth time something like this has passed. Great rule, but the real problem is profiteering, not discrimination. A little investigating would go a long way.

Re: OK, but...

[winterbadger]

the real problem is profiteering, not discrimination

No, I don't think so. I think they are both important issues, and one need not be sidestepped for the other. Even if the company were handling its financial affairs with utmost rectitude, inoculating itself against real liability for mistreatment of its employees is not acceptable.

[fionnabhar.livejournal.com]

Clarification: In providing the summary, it must be said that I did not write it. I just found around Teh Interwebs. :-)

[schizokitty.livejournal.com]

Gods, I can't even imagine what the 30 nays would give as a reason for their votes... >:-O

[ban-leodhasach.livejournal.com]

OMG!!! That is plain scary! Why would any company put a clause like that in their contracts??

[winterbadger]

The only reason I can imagine is that they expect they will be threatened with such suits and want to protect themselves. Why would they think it's likely unless they know they are creating situations where they could be liable to such charges?

[blueingenue.livejournal.com]

I think forced arbitration is a bane on American contractual law that deprives litigants of impartial due process.

That said, trying to avoid those suits does not always mean a company is knowingly "creating situations". Disgruntled (former)employees do file frivolous suits. Bad employees can create liabilities for a company, and a large company with dispersed operations has reduced ability to predict and prevent these situations before liability is incurred. (I'm not saying this was the case with KBR, which missed obvious chances at prevention and remediation.)

[winterbadger]

I agree that frivolous lawsuits can be very harmful to a company. It's my understanding, however, that most courts understand this as well and can be fairly punitive in the case of clearly baseless allegations.

For a corporation as large and powerful as KBR (a division of Halliburton from 1962 until 2007), I have no fear for their safety from such harassment, and considerable fear for what they might have felt they could get away with, given that at the time their former chairman and CEO was VP (and effectively president) of the United States.

"Creating situations" was a bit sloppy language on my part, however. Perhaps more accurate would be "allowing situations to develop without taking corrective action as soon as possible".

[blueingenue.livejournal.com]

My point was, forced arbitration clauses are so widespread in contract boilerplate, seeing one does not indicate the company offering the contract has, or will, create situations, or allow situations to develop without taking corrective action as soon as possible.

On the flip side, if I refused to sign a contract with a forced arbitration clause, it would not indicate I harbored an intention to sue or that I would seek out reasons to sue.

I do not believe KBR's permissiveness of unacceptable behavior was fostered by the existence of the forced arbitration clause, nor do I believe KBR would have been more duly diligent in the absence of such a clause.

(I still think forced arbitration should be banned.)

[winterbadger]

I do not believe KBR's permissiveness of unacceptable behavior was fostered by the existence of the forced arbitration clause, nor do I believe KBR would have been more duly diligent in the absence of such a clause.

I think the forced arbitration clause was a deliberate and conscious attempt to inoculate the company against the consequences of any misbehavior or criminal misconduct by its employees and failure by its managers to act responsibly to correct such. I think knowledge of it certainly contributed to such failure.

[blueingenue.livejournal.com]

My credit card issuers intend to steal from me, too?

[blueingenue.livejournal.com]

I doubt the employees that spiked Jamie Leigh's drink and gang raped her pondered the nuances of her employment contract before or during the attack.