[quote]
Boston wrote:
The key words here are “supposedly” and “allegedly” or any synonyms. Until those go away, this story doesn’t really show anything about any supposed moral superiority.
Varqanir wrote:
And considering that the alleged victim is supposedly barred by contract from suing her employer, and also that her alleged attackers are supposedly immune from prosecution, I don’t suppose that these keywords will be going anywhere anytime soon.[/quote]
There is no way that Haliburton could contract out of liability for this, were it true. Firstly, I’m fairly sure you can’t contract out of liability for illegal acts of employees. Secondly, if there weren’t a specific law on the books to that effect, I’d bet dollars to donuts that any judge would negate such an agreement as against public policy.
Also, didn’t this story come from allegations as part of a lawsuit?
There is no way that Haliburton could contract out of liability for this, were it true. Firstly, I’m fairly sure you can’t contract out of liability for illegal acts of employees. Secondly, if there weren’t a specific law on the books to that effect, I’d bet dollars to donuts that any judge would negate such an agreement as against public policy.
Also, didn’t this story come from allegations as part of a lawsuit?
[/quote]
If I remember correctly from the article and from other sources that I’ve read, the woman’s contract specified that any claims against the company would have to be settled by private arbitration rather than by a civil court. And Halliburton ALWAYS wins in arbitration.
As far as criminal charges, these mercs have always operated in sort of a legal limbo, not quite under US jurisdiction, not quite under Iraqi jurisdiction, and not liable under the UCMJ. I believe it was only this month that the Pentagon grudgingly admitted that military contractors could be held liable for criminal acts under US law, after a drunk Blackwater merc shot up an Iraqi guard in the Green Zone.
Those arbitration clauses are often binding for typical negligence claims - I would still be shocked if a judge held it to be binding in the case of a willful criminal act. Otherwise why wouldn’t all employers simply put that clause into employment agreements - no sexual harassment liability ever again…
I still think it has more to do with jurisdiction in this case. If the alleged perpetrators are unable to be charged with committing a willful criminal act due to their unclear legal status, I doubt that the woman will have a leg to stand on in her civil case.
I’m not up on international law, but what judge in what district do you imagine would normally try a civil suit between a US citizen and a multinational company headquartered in Dubai, for damages arising from alleged offenses committed in a foreign war zone?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I still think it has more to do with jurisdiction in this case. If the alleged perpetrators are unable to be charged with committing a willful criminal act due to their unclear legal status, I doubt that the woman will have a leg to stand on in her civil case.
I’m not up on international law, but what judge in what district do you imagine would normally try a civil suit between a US citizen and a multinational company headquartered in Dubai, for damages arising from alleged offenses committed in a foreign war zone?[/quote]
U.S. parent, government contracting sub - I don’t think there’s any doubt that multiple U.S. courts would have jurisdiction here. Under comparable reasoning to the “affecting the stream of commerce” theories of jurisdiction, the fact the sub is advertising for employees in the U.S. may be enough for jurisdiction. And if not over the sub, a controlling parent can be held liable for problems with the sub.
Also, as I pointed out before - this whole story is in the context of a lawsuit - and I don’t think the court in which it was filed is going to find it lacks jurisdiction. But I guess we’ll see.