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]).

Catcalls at me from the peanut gallery are nothing new, I know.

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.

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

I don't believe that women raped in the military are not required to sign away rights to sue the perpetrators, any commanding officers who turn a blind eye, or anyone else involved. Why should civilian women raped in a war zone by colleagues be any different?

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.

Leo, the provisions are specifically about co-workers raping other co-workers. Are you suggesting that war zones are more likely to trigger co-workers attacking one another?

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.

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”.

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.

My only involvement on this thread was to expose the stunt by Franken as the political far-left stunt that it is,

That's what I love about you DLS and the other Republicans/Conservatives, the cheer predictability…

If the “Dirty F**ken Hippies” came out in favor of Motherhood and Drug Criminalization, you would rail against them and come in favor of Abortion and Cheap Drugs…

Nice to see you finally make a concise and coherent statement on this. Thank-you.

Actually, I don't. While I've been more willing than before to push back, hard, it's not partisan in any sense that I'm a Republican, for I'm not. The real explanation is that I'm not hesitant to sidestep the superficialities and zero in on the _real_ issue, which may disappoint those who are preoccupied with what has them so upset or what they otherwise consider much more pressing or important, to them.

In this case, it's another example of Franken demonstrating the kind of politician he wishes to be, which lies in a context of similar, left-wing Dems feeling increasingly ambitious and eager to flex their political muscles (to the point of overreach and liability among all but the farther-left public), which includes agenda that features a Bush-Cheney-revanchism “motif” or theme. (“Truth commission” revival, soon?)

Having been in proximity to a couple such cases, those hooks or factors seem to me, to defy the rational sometimes.

These days, those things have captured the public imagination at most as much as the manufactured hot story of the day about some inane celebrity.

Now I am sympathetic to the idea that in the legal circles the type of fame and publicity is different, and if they could get to the Supreme court…well. That said, I'd be really interested in whether the PR calculus has changed over the decades. If this is a hotly contested legal issue that they could advance through the courts and get a new ruling about these matters, that's one thing, but if it's just a one and done, I wonder if it'd even be worth it for them.