Sex Assault Suit Vs. Halliburton Killed

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by solvs, Feb 7, 2008.

  1. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #1
    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4249898&page=1

    And please don't start with the "she shouldn't have been there" thing again. Let's all just get pissed and agree it shouldn't have happened. Then get even more angry when Congress makes a big deal about doing something about it, then forgets about it the next week and does nothing.
     
  2. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #2
    Pretty much the best strategy when anything Halliburton/Cheney/Iraq/Corruption comes up. Mine's a vodka cranberry.
     
  3. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #3
  4. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #4
    Another Halliburton/KBR sex scandal?

    I thought this thread was referring to the younger girl that was raped.

    Un-****ing-believable.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  6. solvs thread starter macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #6
    There are several of them, and thanks to the previous young lady, more and more are coming out claiming the same things. The higher ups still don't want to admit it or prosecute. Congress is talking big, but we all know where that leads.
     
  7. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #7
    Damn!
    I thought it was a choice.

    "Sex Assault Suit Vs. Halliburton Killed"

    I was going to say "the latter please"
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    The real disgrace here as I see it is that it is possible to uphold a contract of employment which denies due process to a victim of such egregious mistreatment. Such unfair contracts should be overturned as a matter of course.
     
  9. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #9
    Well, I've not seen the contract, and I'd probably defer to nbs2 on a contractual question. But I feel safe in saying there are almost certainly a number of clauses requiring arbitration and foregoing the right to sue, as well as a clause that requires the signer to acknowledge that they had the opportunity to have the contract reviewed by competent legal counsel, as well as an integration clause. So by a party freely signing it, a court is very likely to uphold it. Absent a defense to the formation of a contract in the first place, the best bet might be to claim breach of contract for failure to provide reasonable security measures. But that's all just speculation.

    That said, a contract cannot absolve someone else of criminal liability. But demonstrating that Halliburton or Blackwater acted criminally would be difficult.
     
  10. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #10
    This sort of scenario is precisely why laissez faire capatilism is a terrible idea for society. We have "oversight" now, and look what we have in this case. Obviously oversight has been avoided here. One of the perks of having the former CEO as Vice president methinks.

    What is the message one can take from these contracts? They expect these sorts of things to happen?

    The fact that it's even possible to for that sort of contract to exist is baffling.
     
  11. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #11
    ah look like we have yet another example of how the media makes everything a bigger deal that it is should be and how people do not read past the head line.


    2nd paragraph
    Only reason the law suit was shot down by the courts is because of the employment contract. The arbitrator is a 3rd party not related to either side.


    but like it came up in the other tread. The burden of proof is on the lady suing and even then it was her word verse the companies and everyone elses. She has to be able to prove it. Not make a lot of noise. But this is going to be another one of those times that everyone says she has a right blah blah blah. Not giving a damn if she is telling the truth or not or the fact that she has to prove her case.
     
  12. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #12
    I think we all know this is the case. The problem is that any deliberations and results will be sealed, not made public. Also, there are such things as unfair clauses in contracts that we feel ought to be overruled by a judge.
     
  13. solvs thread starter macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    Isn't that the issue? That the companies are covering up criminal behavior and creating an unsafe environment they refuse to rectify? Wouldn't that at least hold up in a civil case? (I'm really asking... I'd hope, but I don't know)

    My quote mentioned that it will go to arbitration, that's not the issue.

    Well at least you aren't saying she shouldn't have been there in the first place, and you have a point, but I would hope you aren't trying to say it isn't happening, because it certainly is. And again, part of why we're so mad is because it's not only prevalent, but it's being covered up. I don't actually expect her to win anything, especially with these "secret arbitrations", though it would be nice if someone were held responsible for a change and had to deal with consequences, but it shouldn't be happening in the first place. And if we do nothing about it, it will only continue to happen.

    At least it was denied, but that still kinda pisses me off that they would even try after making such a big deal about not letting it be a regular courtroom, but instead a secret arbitration where and how they decide.
     
  14. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #14
    I hate to give the lawyer answer, but I kinda have to: it depends. There are several legal issues presented, and that's excluding the evidentiary issues.

    I think the essential question that is being asked in this thread is if a contract, and specifically this woman's, can be found by a court to be invalid. More specifically, the question seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) if a court can declare an arbitration requirement void. In general, a court may do so, but only under very limited circumstances.

    That said, requiring arbitration is very common. There is no guarantee that an arbiter will decide for the company--if what I have read regarding the arbitration clause is correct, it requires a neutral, third party arbitrator. So we should not assume that arbitration will result in an automatic win for the company. Conduct of the arbitration will most likely be governed by the rules of the American Arbitration Association. (However, as I said before, I have not read the contract, so do not know that--it is, however, a reasonable assumption).

    Also, arbitration decisions can be subject to judicial review. That review is generally very limited--typically a judge would have to find that the process was SO unfair it was meaningless, or that the agreed-upon rules were not followed, or that the arbitrator was not, in fact, neutral, etc.

    Finally, she might be able to bring an action on a number of different grounds--hostile work environment, breach of contract, etc., but without knowing the terms of her contract it is impossible to say. The reason is that courts are loathe to rewrite or reinterpret contracts that people have freely entered into, and no one is claiming the woman was forced to sign it. And yes, you can agree to waive your rights, including your right to sue.

    So she does have a right to prove her case--just not in front of an Article III judge. that's something to be aware of in any contract you sign--for anything. Take note of any required mediation/arbitration clause, and note the terms. And if you're not comfortable with them, don't sign it.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    However, where the contract is essentially enabling the employer to avoid criminal proceedings for criminal negligence, then I would have thought that the contract was by definition unfair. Saying that it is up to an employee not to sign a contract which deprives him or her of due process implies that a prospective employee should have no right to expect that a contract of employment will not negatively impact his or her civil rights.
     
  16. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #16
    What is your question?
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    Why are such egregiously unfair contracts upheld in your country? I doubt that they would be in Europe.
     
  18. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #18
    Why is it such an egregiously "unfair" contract?
     

Share This Page