Under the congressionally approved provision, the federal government would not be able to do business with companies with $1 million or more in contracts that deny court hearings for victims of assault, false imprisonment or emotional distress. Victims of assault would be able to sue the employers of the alleged attacker, as well as the attacker. The Defense Department can apply a waiver for national security reasons.
*****
Interesting news, and I am not too sure how this ‘really’ applies to contractors, both male and female, who are ‘victims of assault, false imprisonment or emotional distress’. I assume this only applies to U.S. citizens, and this law only works if they are seeking legal action against others who U.S. citizens and working as contractors? But yeah, I think it is great that individual contractors have a little more teeth to deal with companies who mistreat us.
The problem here though, is that I am not a legal expert about this stuff, and I do not know how this new legal mechanism will fair in court. Boy, where is the Feral Jundi legal team when you need them? Guns, money, and lawyers is all you need for a party. lol
I think the most important part to look at in this amendment in the defense bill, is that the DoD reserves the right to apply a waiver for national security reasons. That is smart, because I could easily see this law being abused. I want those that have truly been wronged, to get justice. But I also want to emphasize how much more important it is to maintain national security and to not hinder the war effort in any way. We will see how it goes, and hopefully commonsense dictates on how this is used.
Oh, and for the guys that did those things to Jamie Leigh Jones, and to those leaders that allowed it to happen or did nothing about it, may you all rot in hell for your crimes. –Matt
—————————————————————–
Amendment ensures contractors have legal rights
Dec. 20, 2009
By MARIA RECIO
McClatchy Newspapers
Four years ago, Jamie Leigh Jones, a 20-year old Texas contract employee working in Iraq, was drugged, stripped, beaten and gang-raped by her co-workers on her fourth day in country. She finally managed to get a phone call out from the shipping container where she was being detained – by her employer, KBR, then a Halliburton company.
That call to her father led to a call to her congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, and her rescue after Poe had the State Department locate her. But Jones’ attempts at justice – and restitution – were blocked by a little-noticed compulsory arbitration clause in the contracts of private employees working for federal government contractors.
Now, a move by Congress last week, jumpstarted by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., would protect contract employees by ensuring that they have legal recourse.
The provision is in the defense appropriations bill that the Senate approved Saturday after the House passed it Wednesday. It only needs the president’s signature to become law.
“This amendment makes all the hard times that I have gone through, when going public with such a personal tragedy, worth every tear shed from telling and retelling my horrific experience,” Jones said after the Senate first acted on the bill in October. Jones most recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in October: “I know this amendment will save so many in the future.”
Jones herself is not directly affected by the amendment. But after a hard-fought four-year battle, she won the right to sue her attackers and the company under a ruling in September by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Her case is expected to go to trial next year.
“The congressional amendment tracks the Fifth Circuit decision,” said Poe. For Poe, a former Texas district judge who chairs the House’s Victims’ Rights Caucus and who has been one of Jones’ strongest advocates, the new law is a milestone.
Under the congressionally approved provision, the federal government would not be able to do business with companies with $1 million or more in contracts that deny court hearings for victims of assault, false imprisonment or emotional distress. Victims of assault would be able to sue the employers of the alleged attacker, as well as the attacker. The Defense Department can apply a waiver for national security reasons.
Jones, now married and with a child – who she named after Poe – is a teacher, lives in a Houston suburb and advocates for victims through a foundation that bears her name.
Franken was the prime mover behind the legislation, which came about this fall after he was moved by her story.
“Jamie Leigh Jones is a strong, courageous woman, who used her own horrific experience to inspire change,” said Franken in a statement.
“I am honored to know her, and honored to have been a part of her cause,” Franken said. “I came to Washington to stand up for folks like Jamie Leigh, and stand up to the powerful interests that too often silence their voices.”
The provision had a contentious debate in the Senate, where it passed in October 68-30 – engendering a vocal critique of the 30 all white, all male “no” voters, including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court judge, said that he was a strong advocate for victims but he was opposed to a provision that would benefit trial lawyers.
All 17 female senators voted for the amendment.
“This kind of violent crime should not be obscured by politics or partisanship,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. “The fact is, a Texas woman serving our country in Iraq was brutally sexually assaulted. She deserves to have her day in court.”
Story here.
Actually my thought following the reading of the amendment is it means people can be selectively burned or hung following alleged misconduct.The fog of war can skew perceptions etc.It also would mean that allegedly the aggrieved can conceivably collect monetary damages.Of course I have no law degree either just a personal understanding of the dichotomy of charging soldiers,or contractors with atrocity in the field.Gray areas can be dangerous.Merry Christmas sir.-Tyler
Comment by tyler — Wednesday, December 23, 2009 @ 4:33 AM
Tyler,
Thanks for the post, and that is an interesting perspective. Protection from possible reprisals would be something to think about if an individual was to go down this route.
Which would then bring into effect the Whistleblower laws designed to protect contractors, which are not that strong at all. I am hoping that some legal group or lawyer will find their way to this post and make a comment about such things. My guess is people are still chewing on this and trying to figure out the angles. Take care. -Matt
Comment by headjundi — Wednesday, December 23, 2009 @ 5:38 AM