DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record—Senate S5220

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record—Senate S5220 S5220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 22, 2010 mom, an immigrant to this country, That is what we believe in on the know what the facts say. They know and my dad, from a farm family, never Democratic side of the aisle. The Re- the history. I hope they do not embrace borrowed money, scared to death of publicans say: Oh, deficit spending. the Republican approach which will debt, because they saw the Great De- Stop. We cannot do that. Then what drive us further into unemployment pression and they saw it destroy peo- happens? The business fails. The jobs and recession. ple. Franklin Roosevelt came in as are lost. The people draw unemploy- I yield the floor. President in those days. He came in in ment and, in desperation, wait for The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- March of 1933. He said, we are going to something to happen. pore. The Senator from Maryland. change this. We are going to get Amer- You know what the Republicans are f ica back on its feet. You have nothing up to now? Last week we asked them: KAGAN NOMINATION to fear but fear itself. We are going to Would you please extend unemploy- put people back to work. We are going ment benefits for these millions of Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this to give them government jobs if we Americans who are out of work. In my Monday the Senate Judiciary Com- cannot find them jobs in the private State the unemployment rate is 10.8 mittee will begin the confirmation sector. We are going to tell our farm- percent. It has been around that for hearings for Elena Kagan to be an As- ers, you are going to survive because several months now. Boone County, sociate Justice of the Supreme Court. we are going to basically stand behind 16.6 percent; Pulaski County, way down These confirmation hearings will pro- you through the tough years. Whether south, 12 percent; western edge of our vide an opportunity to the public to see it is a drought or a flood, we are going State, Hancock County, 11.8 percent; firsthand how important Supreme to be around to help you get through to and in Clark County, in the south- Court decisions are in their ordinary the next year. We are going to make eastern end of our State, 13.7 percent. lives. There are many examples we sure that banks do not fail. We are There are 717,000 people in Illinois offi- could give, from schools to consumer going to inject government into this cially unemployed. issues to personal lives, privacy, reli- economy and get America back on its The Republicans say: Cut off their gious protections, helping the environ- feet. unemployment benefits. That is what ment, the workplace. At that time the unemployment rate they voted for last Thursday. And In recent years, by a sharply divided in America was 25 percent. When the 80,000 of those 717,000 unemployed will Court, they have reversed precedent New Deal got started, they brought it lose their unemployment benefits. and congressional intent and ruled on down 13 percent, cut it in half because What happens to the unemployment the side of big business over individual of government investment in this econ- check? It is the most quickly spent rights. This is judicial activism, not ju- omy. People went back to work. They government check ever sent out. Des- dicial restraint. I hope all my col- left the long lines waiting for soup and perate people out of work take that leagues will agree that the next Su- bread and started earning some money. check and turn it into groceries and preme Court Justice should be on the They built highways. They built clothes and shoes and gas in the car side of individual Americans, following bridges. They built stadiums. They and utility bills and rent and mortgage legal precedent and congressional in- built parts of America we still use payments as quickly as they receive it. tent. today. It was an investment by the It is money right back into the econ- I wish to give an example—I know government in our economy to bring us omy. They want to cut it off because my colleagues will give others—about out of the worst depression we had ever we have a deficit. workplace fairness in Ledbetter v. faced. I understand this deficit. I am on the Goodyear Tire. Let me provide a little Then, after a few years what hap- Deficit Commission, and I understand background. Lilly Ledbetter worked pened? Republican critics came for- taking it seriously. But let’s take seri- for 19 years at Goodyear Tire. During ward and said, wait a minute. This is ously putting America back to work. that period, she was paid $15,000 a year deficit spending. We are spending This Republican approach of cutting less than her male counterparts doing money we do not have. We have got to the unemployment compensation for the same work. This type of discrimi- stop. And they prevailed, just as Sen- people who lost their jobs through no nation is prohibited by congressional ator MCCONNELL wants to prevail fault of their own is a strategy that statute under the Civil Rights Act of today. Hit the brakes. Stop spending. failed in the 1930s and is going to fail 1964. Within that legislation, title VII You know what happened? They pre- us now. was specifically enacted to protect vailed with that argument. You know We have to believe in America and a American workers from undue dis- what happened with the unemployment better day when people are back to crimination, including gender discrimi- rate? It went from 13 percent back to 19 work and this economy is moving for- nation. When Mrs. Ledbetter found out percent, and the sick economy contin- ward. We will deal with this deficit she was being discriminated against, ued for years until the war came along, with a strong economy, with Ameri- she did the right thing: she brought a World War II, and we had a massive in- cans working, not by quaking and quiv- claim against her employer. vestment in our Nation to protect our ering and saying we cannot put money The only reason Mrs. Ledbetter knew Nation, to give our troops what they back into the hands of those who are she was being paid less than her male needed, and we put people back to out of work. That is one of the fun- counterparts was because a colleague work. damentals in this government. It is the finally told her. This is not unusual. In Now we are about to repeat history. way we take this great free market fact, in most employment discrimina- The Republicans come to us now and system of ours, when it falls on hard tion cases, employees are unaware of say, we have got to stop putting money times, and move it forward again. discrimination until an unexpected back into the economy. It creates def- All of the speeches we will hear from event occurs or undisclosed informa- icit. Yes, it does. But if you do not get the other side of the aisle about defi- tion finally comes to light. the 14 million unemployed Americans cits are going to overlook the obvious. Mrs. Ledbetter went to court, stated back to work, the deficit will get Were it not for the failed economic her claim, and won. After multiple ap- worse. They will not be paying taxes, policies of the Bush administration, we peals, the case reached the Supreme they will be drawing on government would not be where we are today. Were Court. The Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 services. it not for the doubling of the national decision, denied her claim. The Court We want them back to work. And it debt under the last Republican Presi- said Mrs. Ledbetter had to file her case means making sure we make invest- dent, we would not be where we are within 180 days after the beginning of ments in America that count—helping today. the discrimination, and since she did small businesses; tax credits and tax It seems that those on the other side not do that, her claim was barred by deductions for small businesses; credit of the aisle have, I guess, an extreme the statute of limitations. This defies for small businesses; government ac- sensitivity to deficits when there is a logic. How can a person bring a claim tively moving forward to give small Democratic President, and are obliv- when they don’t know they are being businesses a chance to keep their em- ious to them when there is a Repub- discriminated against? It makes no ployees and hire more. lican President. The American people sense. VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:52 Jun 22, 2010 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G22JN6.002 S22JNPT1 rfrederick on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with SENATE June 22, 2010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5221 This decision appalled me and many stands the appropriate role of the Su- porations. They actually have a duty, a of our colleagues. Whose side is the Su- preme Court. legal duty to their shareholders to preme Court on? What happened to pro- I yield the floor. maximize their economic self-interest. tecting American workers and not big The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- It is what they do. It is why they were business? What happened to following pore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Report on the Litigation Lobby
    CENTER FOR LEGAL POLICY AT THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE C L P STREET NW A REPORT ON THE LITIGATION LOBBY 2010 A Message from the Director merica’s litigation-friendly legal system continues to im- law is, for the most part, crafted by state judges rather than en- A pose a heavy burden on our economy. The annual direct acted by state legislatures, these efforts have centered on ensuring cost of American tort litigation—excluding much securities liti- a friendly judiciary, whether appointed or elected. gation, punitive damages, and the multibillion-dollar settlement With business groups now fighting back against Trial Lawyers, reached between the tobacco companies and the states in 1998— Inc.’s longtime grip on state judiciaries, the litigation lobby has exceeds $250 billion, almost 2 percent of gross domestic prod- turned its attention to state legislatures, where it is not only block- uct.1 The indirect costs of excessive litigiousness (for example, the ing tort reforms but working to expand its portfolio of litigation unnecessary tests and procedures characterizing the practice of opportunities. Among other things, state legislators are authoriz- “defensive” medicine, or the loss of the fruits of research never ing new kinds of lawsuits, raising damage caps, and giving private undertaken on account of the risk of abusive lawsuits) are prob- lawyers authority to sue on behalf of the state. ably much greater than the direct costs themselves.2 Of course, the growth in federal regulation and law has made Of course, tort litigation does do some good, and it does deter it necessary for Trial Lawyers, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON DIVISION) JAMIE LEIGH JONES § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:07-cv-2719 § HALLIBURTON COMPANY d/b/a § KBR KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT § (KBR); KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT§ SERVICES, INC.; KELLOGG § BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL,§ INC.; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, § LLC; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, § INC.; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, § S. de R.L.; KELLOGG BROWN & § ROOT (KBR), INC.; KBR § TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.; § OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATIVE § SERVICES, LTD.; ERIC ILER, § CHARLES BOARTZ; and SEVERAL § JOHN DOE RAPISTS § Defendants. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT NOW COMES, Jamie Leigh Jones, and files this suit against Halliburton Company d/b/a KBR Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root, S. de R.L., Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), Inc., KBR Technical Services, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively 1 “KBR”); Overseas Administrative Services (OAS); Eric Iler, Charles Boartz, and Several other attackers, whose identities are currently only known as “John Doe”, complaining about the sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual assault, rape, physical injury and other personal injuries to Jamie Leigh Jones. For clarification, this case is not about a pinch on the backside, or a few politically incorrect jests at the office. Jamie Leigh Jones was first forced into a sexual relationship, against her will, with her supervisor, or risk losing her job at a time when her mother was incapable of supporting them and Jamie was the sole source of income. After escaping that environment, she was harassed, and threatened in Baghdad, before she was ultimately the subject of a brutal sexual attack by several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally.
    [Show full text]
  • OXPO - Oxford Sciences Po Research Group
    OXPO - Oxford Sciences Po Research group - http://oxpo.politics.ox.ac.uk OXPO Working papers Waiving rights in mandatory arbitration clauses: a challenge for liberalism1 Alicia-Dorothy Mornington Sciences Po (CEVIPOF) Work in progress Please do not cite without the permission of the author 1 This paper was presented at the Oxford Jurisprudence Discussion Group, Oxford University on November 1st 2012. 1 Abstract: This presentation focuses on the case of Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton et al. (USA, 2009). Jones’ employment contract with Halliburton/KBR had a clause stipulating that, in the case of rape she was giving up her right to a tort trial. By signing, she accepted to resort to KBR's private arbitration system. Jones was subsequently raped during a mission in Iraq. Due to the Department of State’s gross negligence, she was barred from having a criminal trial, and her waiver prevented her from initiating a tort trial. Waiving rights poses a serious challenge to neutrality-committed liberalism (NCL), as it takes consent as the basis for legitimacy. NCL’s is committed to protecting liberty, rejects paternalism and does not have a coherent response to waivers. The laissez-faire option logically entails toleration voluntary slavery in the name of freedom, which contradicts NCL’s goal to promote freedom. Yet condemning voluntary slavery means being paternalist, thus limiting freedom in the name of freedom. In both cases, consent to waiving rights leads NCL to a contradiction. The Jones case thus reveals a blind spot for this trend of liberalism. In this paper, I want to argue that in order to rescue NCL from internal contradiction, non-classically liberal arguments are needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Franken's Proposal to Guarantee Sexual Assault Victims Their Day in Court Passes
    For Immediate Release: October 6th, 2009 Contact: Jess McIntosh [email protected] 202.725.6787 Franken's Proposal To Guarantee Sexual Assault Victims Their Day In Court Passes By 68 - 30, Amendment Offered in Honor of former KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones Passes the Senate WASHINGTON, DC [10/6/09] - Today, the amendment offered by U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) to stop funding defense contractors who deny assault victims their day in court passed the United States Senate by a vote of 68 - 30. Last Thursday, Sen. Franken introduced an amendment (S.2588) to the FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill that would restrict funding to defense contractors who commit employees to mandatory binding arbitration in the case of sexual assault. The legislation, endorsed by 61 women's, labor and public interest groups, was inspired by the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, who watched the vote from the Senate gallery today. Jones was a 19-yr-old employee of defense contractor KBR (formerly a Halliburton subsidiary) stationed in Iraq who was gang raped by her co-workers and imprisoned in a shipping container when she tried to report the crime. Her father and U.S. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), worked together to secure her safe return to the United States, but once she was home, she learned a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court, instead forcing her into an "arbitration" process that would be run by KBR itself. Just today, Halliburton filed a petition for a rehearing en banc in the 5th Circuit Court, which means that Jamie's fight is far from over.
    [Show full text]
  • An Archive of Shame: Gender, Embodiment, and Citizenship In
    AN ARCHIVE OF SHAME: GENDER, EMBODIMENT, AND CITIZENSHIP IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN CULTURE A Dissertation by REBECCA LYNNE HARRIS Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2012 Major Subject: English An Archive of Shame: Gender, Embodiment, and Citizenship in Contemporary American Culture Copyright 2012 Rebecca Lynne Harris AN ARCHIVE OF SHAME: GENDER, EMBODIMENT, AND CITIZENSHIP IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN CULTURE A Dissertation by REBECCA LYNNE HARRIS Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Sally Robinson Committee Members, Claire Katz David McWhirter Mary Ann O’Farrell Head of Department: Nancy Warren May 2012 Major Subject: English iii ABSTRACT An Archive of Shame: Gender, Embodiment, and Citizenship in Contemporary American Culture. (May 2012) Rebecca Lynne Harris, B.A., Randolph-Macon College; M.A., Virginia Commonwealth University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Sally Robinson In this dissertation, “An Archive of Shame: Gender, Embodiment, and Citizenship in Contemporary American Culture,” I use the affect of shame in its multiple forms and manifestations as a category of analysis in order to examine complex relationships between gender, sexuality, the body, and citizenship. Through chapters on incest, gender normalization, and disease, I build an “archive” of the feeling of shame that consists of literary texts such as Sapphire’s Push: A Novel, Jeffrey Eugenides’s Middlesex, Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, and Katherine Dunn’s Geek Love, as well as materials from popular culture, films such as Philadelphia, court cases, and other ephemera such as pamphlets and news coverage.
    [Show full text]
  • Violence Against Women in the United States 21 A
    Violence Against Women in the United States and the State’s Obligation to Protect Civil Society briefing papers on community, military and custody 2011 Violence Against Women in the United States and the State’s Obligation to Protect Civil Society briefing papers on community, military and custody submitted to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Rashida Manjoo in advance of her Mission to the United States of America January 24 – February 7, 2011 Full document also available at: www.law.virginia.edu/vaw ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge Rashida Manjoo, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, for her deep commitment to this work, her profound intellectual contributions, and generosity of time and spirit in meeting with civil society. Shirley Lanta Wang (Duke University School of Law JD‘11) for the cover and publication design and layout Katrina Anderson, Human Rights Counsel, US Legal Program Center for Reproductive Rights University of Virginia School of Law students: Adrienne Boone (JD ’10); Elisa Chen (JD ’13); Rebecca Dalton (JD ’13); Caitlin Gregg (JD ’11); Elizabeth Horner (JD ’11); Julia O’Halloran (JD ’13); Emily Ponder (JD ’14); Sarika Reuben (JD ’13); Marina Warner (JD ’11) With Great Appreciation for funding the publication of this compilation: University of Virginia Center for International Studies Dean Claudio Grossman and American University, Washington College of Law Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School National Organization for Women Foundation University of Virginia School of Law Human Rights Clinic American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project University of Miami School of Law Human Rights Clinic Dean Louis Bilionis and the University of Cincinnati College of Law Clinical Program Indian Law Resource Center Center for Reproductive Rights Stephanie Ortoleva / Women Enabled ii CHAPTER AUTHORS The authors do not necessarily endorse all of the positions expressed in other chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 111 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 111 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 156 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2010 No. 94 House of Representatives The House met at 12:30 p.m. and was live together in unity and peace. We Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana. Mr. called to order by the Speaker pro tem- are different and yet the same. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ivy pore (Mr. CUELLAR). Thank You for the gift of commu- Tech Community College in South f nities around the world, large and Bend, Indiana. Last week, Ivy Tech’s small, and for the many ways in which South Bend campus was approved by DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO our hands are an extension of Your the Indiana Commission for Higher TEMPORE graceful hands. Education to become the first college The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- Empower the leaders of the House in in Indiana to offer an associate’s de- fore the House the following commu- their important work as they serve to gree in the field of nanotechnology. nication from the Speaker: make our communities safe, produc- As demonstrated by advances made at the Midwest Institute for Nanoelec- Washington, DC, June 22, 2010. tive, and beautiful places to live and tronics Discovery in South Bend, north I hereby appoint the Honorable HENRY work. CUELLAR to act as Speaker pro tempore on Grant each person here wisdom in central Indiana is a growing leader in this day. the important work that You have the Nation’s nanotechnology research NANCY PELOSI, called them to do.
    [Show full text]
  • ''Workplace Fairness: Has the Supreme Court Been
    S. HRG. 111–396 ‘‘WORKPLACE FAIRNESS: HAS THE SUPREME COURT BEEN MISINTERPRETING LAWS DE- SIGNED TO PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS FROM DISCRIMINATION?’’ HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 7, 2009 Serial No. J–111–55 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 56–089 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 May 11, 2010 Jkt 056089 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56089.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania AL FRANKEN, Minnesota BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 May 11, 2010 Jkt 056089 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56089.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper: Headline Blues
    HEADLINE BLUES: Number 23 ❖ October 2011 Civil Justice In The Age Of New Media BY RUSSELL SMITH TABLE OF CONTENTS Edited by Joanne Doroshow Introduction ….………………………………1 INTRODUCTION How Do People Get Their News Today and What Are They Learning ………………2 In January 2001, the Center for Justice & Democracy released a Our Methodology ……………………………4 White Paper entitled Reading Between the Headlines: The 1 Media and Jury Verdicts. The report analyzed the media’s General Findings …………………………… 4 coverage of civil jury verdicts and found this coverage to be A. Median award …………………………4 B. Plantiff vs. Defense Verdicts ………… 5 deeply skewed, fueling common misperceptions that civil juries C. Failure to Mention Caps ………………6 routinely award plaintiffs eye-popping verdicts for frivolous Maine Medical Malpractice Case … 6 claims. In addition, headlines commonly emphasized large Mississippi Asbestos Case ………… 7 monetary awards and rarely noted the misconduct that led to the 2 Notes ………………………………………… 12 verdict, such as: “$90 Million Awarded in Car Rollover Case,” “Fen-Phen Suit Nets Pair $29.1 Million Jury Award,”3 Appendix …………………………………… 14 4 “Ravenwood patient awarded $55 million,” “Jury Hands Car- Crash Victims A Record $5B,”5 “Jury Awards Two Brothers $105 Million”.6 Citing real world statistics used by legal scholars and empirical researchers, we found that news coverage of verdicts varied widely from what was actually happening in Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School the civil courts, namely that significant numbers of juries and 185
    [Show full text]
  • Here Litigation Action Will Be in 2009: Fulbright & Jaworski Litigation Trends Data Released, Institute of Management & Administration, Inc., WL 09-1 Law Off
    NO. 09 - 864 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _____________________________________________________________ KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., HALLIBURTON COMPANY D/B/A KBR KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, LLC, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC., KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, INC., KBR, INC., KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, INC., S. DE R.L., AND OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LTD., Petitioner, v. JAMIE LEIGH JONES, Respondent. ____________________________________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit __________________________________________ RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION _______________________________________________________________ L. TODD KELLY JOHN VAIL* HEIDI O. VICKNAIR JEFFREY R. WHITE THE KELLY LAW FIRM, P.C. ANDRE M. MURA One Riverway, Suite 1150 CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL Houston, TX 77056-0920 LITIGATION, P.C. (713) 255-2055 777 Sixth Street, N.W. STEPHANIE M. MORRIS Suite 520 1660 L. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Suite 506 (202) 944-2887 Washington, DC 20036 [email protected] (202) 536-2353 Counsel for Respondent *Counsel of Record i QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Federal Arbitration Act compel a court to interpret contractual language to find that gang rape perpetrated by co-employees of the victim in the victim’s bedroom is “related to the employment” of the victim or occurred “in the workplace” of the victim? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ..........................................i TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................iii RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION.............. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................... 1 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ........... 6 I. The Decision Below Is a Fact-Bound, Faithful Application of Existing Doctrine. ........................................................... 7 II.
    [Show full text]
  • A Practical Application of the Combatant Activities Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act
    St. John's Law Review Volume 87 Number 2 Volume 87, Spring-Summer 2013, Article 14 Numbers 2-3 The Battle over Combat: A Practical Application of the Combatant Activities Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act Michael Kutner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FINAL_KUTNER 2/27/2014 6:30 PM THE BATTLE OVER COMBAT: A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE COMBATANT ACTIVITIES EXCEPTION TO THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT MICHAEL KUTNER† INTRODUCTION The combatant activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act is a preservation of sovereign immunity from liability for injuries resulting from the “combatant activities” of the United States military.1 The exception is designed to protect the undeniably compelling government interest of defending the nation from harm without the burden of liability for action necessary to achieve that goal.2 It addresses the concern that imposing tort liability on the military could lead to a chilling effect on decision-making that would cause hesitation to act in the interest of national defense.3 To that end, the exception has in recent years been applied by federal courts in such a way as to effect a policy of “elimination of tort from the battlefield” entirely.4 At first glance, this interpretation seems quite neatly tailored to reflect the exception’s goal.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Legislative Attempts to Amend the Federal Arbitration Act: What Policy Changes Need to Be Implemented for #Metoo Victims M
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Seton Hall University Libraries CHAUDRY(DO NOT DELETE) 5/9/2019 2:14 PM AN ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT: WHAT POLICY CHANGES NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR #METOO VICTIMS M. Isabelle Chaudry* I.INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 216 II. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORK PLACE AS A UNIQUE PROBLEM: ADJUDICATION IN A PRIVATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME ........................ 219 A. Can Legislative Efforts Resolve the Issue? ..................... 222 B. The Process of Arbitration ............................................. 224 C. In What Context Does Arbitration Work? ...................... 226 D. Dangers of Arbitrating Sexual Harassment Claims ....... 228 i. Judicial review ............................................................. 228 E. Arbitration is Not a Good Option at this Time ............... 229 i. Confidentiality: The Root of The Issue ....................... 232 III. AN ANALYSIS OF CONGRESSIONAL EFFORTS ............................. 235 A. Hearings on the Arbitration Fairness ............................... 236 i. 2007 Hearing on the Arbitration Fairness Act .......... 236 ii. 2009 Hearing: Examining the use of Arbitration in Employment Contracts, Long-Term Care Facility Admission Contracts and Other Consumer Contracts ................................................................... 236 iii. 2011 Hearing: Arbitration:
    [Show full text]