Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You ran to your room and slammed the door a lot as a child, didn't you?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Invented imaginary things to argue against? Nope? Well, you do it now.
Originally Posted By DAR What I find incredible is that not once in this thread did anyone say the rapists were the one's who were responsible for this. They committed the act. And if it was covered up, then yes that company should be punished. But not every company, even the one's with the defense contracts, aren't always going to be aware of what happens, no company can. This amendment will allow for a company to be sued no matter what in a case like this.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And has been explained repeatedly, if there's no culpability on the part of the company, the suit will not proceed. And isn't that better than telling somebody who's been violently assaulted that they have absolutely no recourse, as a condition of their employment.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Again, the argument is mostly about corporations deserving special rights above what individual citizens are granted. As individual citizens, we are all subject to lawsuits, for whatever reason. The person or corporation who brings the lawsuit against us must appear before the court and convince the judge that a trial is worth the court's time and money. The same is mostly true for corporations who wish to sue another corporation or individual. But in this particular regard, Halliburton made the employee sign an arbitration only agreement before sending her to the middle east, which restricted her ability to sue Halliburton for unjust and unfair treatment. Halliburton knew about and covered up the gang rape and shielded the rapists from subsequent prosecution. The company did not report them to law enforcement, even though the evidence against them was overwhelming. This is why the employee who was raped wanted to sue Halliburton, for failing to do what was LEGALLY required of them regarding the rape, particularly since the woman's work was a direct result of a government contract given to Halliburton for services furnished in Iraq. But the arbitration agreement she signed as a condition of employment prevented her from suing Halliburton for retribution. Signing arbitration agreements should not automatically give a corporation a free pass on breaking the law when it harms their employees or customers. Corporations have the legal definition of personhood, and as such, benefit from almost all the same rights and privileges as individual citizens. Yes, there are exceptions, but not when it comes to lawsuits. Pro-business advocates believe that all corporations should have the right to file lawsuits on any individual or business, yet many of those same advocates believe that corporations should be shielded from "frivolous lawsuits" that supposedly waste their time and money defending. Well... I have no such laws shielding me from lawsuits, and neither do other individual citizens. If corporations want to share the same rights and privileges in our country as individual citizens, then they should also be open to lawsuits, any and all lawsuits, just as we are. Too bad if it costs them money to appear before the court and convince the judge that the lawsuit has no merit. That's what individual citizens are forced to do, who more often than not do not have the financial means at their disposal for such a defense.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Nobody has been able to explain why a company should be sued if they had no idea such an act occured on their premises.*** Kar2oonMan already explained it to you a hundred times. What YOU have yet to explain is why you and the gang of 30 think they should be protected from the law arbitrarily and under any circumstances. ***But you're still talking about tons of time and money spent on legal fees which some businesses wouldn't be able to afford.*** I had no idea defense contractors were so hard up these days. Perhaps if we gave them another war or two, they could fill up their coffers.
Originally Posted By DAR I don't give a F' about defense contractors. I care about about the precedent it will set for other businesses.
Originally Posted By DAR <<And has been explained repeatedly, if there's no culpability on the part of the company, the suit will not proceed.>> Sure it will, everything has a loophole to it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What precedent??? You don't understand the basics of this story yet you argue on.
Originally Posted By DAR But I don't like that it doesn't take any steps to prevent any future sexual assaults from occurring.
Originally Posted By DAR It should have somehow provided for more security. I don't think it did that.
Originally Posted By DAR For any potential rape victim. The real rights of the victim is making sure no such act occurs.
Originally Posted By Mr X Rape is already a punishable crime though, DAR. (just so long as people or companies aren't able to get away with it through legal loopholes like the one this just closed)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>A company can't physically rape someone.<< You must've missed my thread about my credit card interest rate going up 11%.
