Jon Stewart on the ‘Franken Anti-Government-Contractor Rape Liability Bill’
Jon Stewart’s piece on Sen. Al Franken’s first legislative amendment. Added to a defense bill passed last week, it prohibits giving defense contracts to any company that requires employees to sign a mandatory arbitration contract preventing them from taking the company to court if they’re raped by coworkers.
Why was such a provision necessary? Last year a number of women came forward who were gang raped while working for various Haliburton subsidiaries but cannot take the company to court because their employment contracts prohibit it.
Thirty Republican senators opposed it. Stewart’s indignation is shared by Tom Crawford:
Who did this gang of 30 include? Both of Georgia’s senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, voted against the Franken amendment. Chambliss and Isakson had earlier voted to strip federal funding for ACORN because of hidden-camera videotapes showing ACORN staffers advising a GOP operative posing as a pimp on how he could avoid paying taxes on his business.
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who confessed to patronizing a house of ill repute operated by the Washington Madam, voted against the Franken amendment. Nevada Sen. John Ensign, who has admitted having an affair with a woman who was married to one of his staff aides, also was one of the 30 senators voting against the Franken amendment.
This group of senators [link] obviously consider it a bad thing for a community organizing group to talk about evading taxes with a GOP operative pretending to be a pimp. Rape, sexual assault, extramarital sex with a prostitute, and an affair with a woman married to one of your employees, on the other hand, is evidently OK.
Can someone explain how that vote is justified?
64 Responses to “Jon Stewart on the ‘Franken Anti-Government-Contractor Rape Liability Bill’”
My dear misguided waif -
Truth told, I agree with much of what you say, but I really liked that salutation.
Much in legal marketing of the type you describe depends on the sensitivity of the case and the skill of the lawyer in dealing with the press. Some are very good. Some god-awful. And, some, unable to win their case in court will use their skills to raise a public firestorm in hopes of getting legislative action, as in the Lilly Leadbetter case and, I suspect this one.
Big Corps and Big Ins have the bucks for most of the brightest and the best from major law firms who will throw a team of 10-20 lawyers, clerks, investigator, paralegals, etc. at a case like this. It's hard for a lawyer or two to keep pace. Burying plaintiffs lawyers in paper, motions, etc. is part of the game, and all you need is one sympathetic judge to get it thrown out of court.
You are clearly correct though. There is no such thing as a contract that can't be broken. This one sounds like an “adhesion” contract…i.e. company wrote it, you sign it if you want the work, no negotiating the terms allowed. Adhesion contracts are generally construed against the party writing the contract, so there should have been some room to attack the contract for the plaintiff. Would be interesting to know what happened. Of course, my first professional acclaim came when I won a case by proving a railroad isn't a railroad. Go figure. The law is a stranger to logic sometimes.
CO -
You asked, “However, should not the evaluation of “unenforceable provisions” be handled through the legal system of due process as opposed to Congress?”
The way it works is that it can be handled by either the legal system or the legislature. That's why my prior comment referred to “contravening legislation or court action”.
Can you produce them please since I have not read them and you seem to have?
As for rapes by co-workers being more or less likely in a warzone, I'd guess yes, War is hell and some of those co-workers might not be American citizens but Iraqis who have a lesser regard for women. Also it really doesn't matter so much whether its more or less likely, the point is that the company recognizes there are dangers in a warzone due to the fact that they can't manage the enviroment like they could in a more stable place. They have other jobs to do such as supporting the troops who are putting their lives on the line and can't devote the same type of time and resources to personel issues. A warzone is not Park Avenue.
If this was directed at me you misread my comments I suggest you revisit them. As I said there I do not believe that the women in question here signed away any rights to sue the perpetrators, just the company they worked for. Two very different things.
Wow. I can not believe what I am reading here, albeit I stopped reading after someone said something to the effect that we should not expect companies to protect women employees from being raped because they are in a war zone; that these women were not forced to sign a piece of paper; that bad things happen in a war zone, that these women are adults,that these women wanted a big paycheck, so they should accept the risk of being raped…..
Perhaps I should have read more, Perhaps such comments were later retracted…
I am sorry, guys, Rape is Rape! War zone or no war zone! Signed piece of paper or no piece of paper! Contract or no contract Big company or no big company
If companies can not provide adequate security for their women employees in a war zone, then they should not hire women, or they should be forced to provide such protection
Justy an opinion. have at it
Actually the complaint was filed not for a coverup but for the assault and what is described as the company's “boys will be boys” attitude and her not being aware of the dangers involved. A coverup is not mentioned in the complaint section that was filed.
You can read the filed complaint itsself here:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-c…
Always best to look at the actual legal documents as opposed to a news story or late night comedian when dealing with a lawsuit.
[...] Franken anti rape immunity legislation bill Jon Stewart on the ‘Franken Anti-Government-Contractor Rape Liability Bill’ | The Modera… [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
“the cheer predictability…”
Catcalls at me from the peanut gallery are nothing new, I know.
“Rape is Rape!”
That never was disputed. That never was even the real issue here. Emotive fuel by the lefties, though, for legislation sought for other reasons, and developing a predictable pattern of behavior in Congress, though (the _real_ issue — [sigh]).
I guess I got what was coming to me since I hadn't read the thing. Normally I go out of my way to do so, since the media is often wrong, but this time I remembered the case from way back when and it was consistent in what they were saying. Anyway if that stuff wasn't affected by the contract I'm not sure why the focus isn't on that.
[...] [...]
[...] [...]