LawTalkers - You (all) lie!

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - You (all) lie! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=848)

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 414468)

Please don't tell me Inhofe is posting here....

If he is, I meant he was "Ritzy" when I called him a cracker.

And I don't think I've called the GC anything worse than stupid.

Ok. You're clear.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 414468)

And I don't think I've called the GC anything worse than stupid.

After all this back and forth this is the only clear lesson. Whatever his concerns, it does not appear that he served his employer very well. A GC should be able to see the big picture a little better.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1436 (Post 414489)

As Hank essentially noted, his law school is telling as to his inherent skill sets.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske (Post 414497)

As Hank essentially noted, his law school is telling as to his inherent skill sets.

GGG wins for clarity. I think Hank's score should reflect this.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 414452)

I've seen very few sexual harassment cases in a long time practicing (I'm old)

Next time, please let me know in advance that a discussion with you on a particular issue is pointless. Much appreciated.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 414503)

Next time, please let me know in advance that a discussion with you on a particular issue is pointless. Much appreciated.

Hmmm. Now I'm wondering who you represent that give you a steady stream of sexual harassment cases.

Steroid addled sports teams? Investment bankers? Golfers? Your governor?

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 414454)

Identify one poster on the board I've referred to as pro-rape.

When I asked whether the spoliation of the rape kit was in any way connected to the arbitration clause, you suggested that I was saying "there are two bad acts, and we should let them both go" -- the bad acts being the gang rape and the spoliation, no?

Okay -- so you didn't accuse me of being pro-rape. Just of believing that these particular rapists should be "let go" because, um..... well, because I suggested that there might be reasonable grounds for a lawmaker to vote against a provision that effectively carves out an exception to the Federal Arbitration Act for discrimination and harassment claims against military contractors. Note that I didn't even say I agreed with those Senators -- just that they might have reasonable grounds, besides the desire to "let Halliburton sweep it under the rug" that you seem convinced was the sole motivation, other than their general pro-rapiness.

Quote:

My point is that there are a set of problems we have with contractors that relate to them policing themselves - and not having much of an interest in doing it thoroughly. Do I think the loss of the rape kit was related to the use of the arb clause? Only in that they were both ways that this group of contractors has found to minimize harm.

That's an awfully weak comparison.

Quote:

Once upon a time, college and university administrators generally tried to sweep rape cases under the rug, arguing that they were protecting the institution's reputation. About 30 years ago, they all finally started realizing how bad an idea that was. All I've been suggesting is that a little sunshine on these issues as it relates to companies hired by the government to act on its behalf sounds like a pretty good idea.

I agree. And it's really a shame that there hasn't been any sunshine on this particular case.

I hate to paraphrase Hank, but remember -- the court ruled that a rape case would NOT be subject to the arbitration clause, because it is not part of the employment relationship (duh). In that regard, the Franken Amendment appears to merely be stating "we like the law." Again, the Franken Amendment may be good or bad, but it is hardly limited to shining sunlight on rape cases.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1436 (Post 414489)

Does anyone know, offhand, what happened at the DCt level?

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 414506)

Hmmm. Now I'm wondering who you represent that give you a steady stream of sexual harassment cases.

Steroid addled sports teams? Investment bankers? Golfers? Your governor?

Sorry -- when you used the word "see", I didn't think you meant "litigated." Maybe I misinterpreted, but I think my interpretation was supported by your apparently belief that all, or a vast majority of, sexual harassment cases involve rape and false imprisonment. My bad.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 414508)

Does anyone know, offhand, what happened at the DCt level?

It appears that the district court decided that some of her claims were arbitrable and some were not:

Quote:

[T]he district court granted in part and denied in part Halliburton/KBR’s motion. For the reasons that follow, it compelled arbitration for all claims, except: (1) assault and battery; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of the alleged assault; (3) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of employees involved in the alleged assault; and (4) false imprisonment.

In so holding, the district court concluded there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, rejecting Jones’ contentions that: there was no meeting of the minds; the arbitration clause was fraudulently induced; the provision was contrary to public policy; and enforcing the agreement would be unconscionable. It also rejected Jones’ alternative contention that, pursuant to the equitable doctrine of unclean hands, the arbitration agreement should not be enforced.

Having decided the arbitration agreement is valid, the district court turned to whether Jones’ claims fell outside the agreement’s scope. After determining the public policy expressed in the Texas Arbitration Act did not govern the question of scope (as Jones had urged), the district court found that certain claims fell outside the scope of the provision. Recognizing that the arbitration provision at issue is broad, it held the four above-listed claims related to the alleged rape (assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employees involved; and false imprisonment) “fall beyond the outer limits of even a broad arbitration provision” and were “not related to Ms. Jones’ employment”. Jones v. Halliburton Co., No. 4:07-CV-2719, 2008 WL 2019463, at *9 (S.D. Tex. 9 May 2008).

While noting that overseas, remote employment, such as Jones’, has led to a liberal interpretation in the case law of the “scope of employment” for purposes of workers’ compensation (specifically, the Defense Base Act), the district court concluded: liberal construction could not “be incorporated wholesale into the interpretation of an arbitration provision”; and, as such, the alleged rape could not be considered related to her employment for purposes of arbitration simply because it might be considered within the scope of employment for workers’ compensation purposes. Id. at *11.

Finally, the district court held: although the arbitration provision extended to personal-injury claims “arising in the workplace”, the court “d[id] not believe [Jones’] bedroom should be considered the workplace, even though her housing was provided by her employer”. Id. at *10.

The district court ordered litigation of the four non-arbitrable claims stayed until arbitration is completed on the other claims. Those other claims were ordered to be arbitrated.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 414509)

I don't litigate. When I "see" a case, I'm usually figuring out whether we'll handle it or send it out. And sometimes talking to the client about the pros and cons of pursuing it at all.

I think you'll have trouble finding anything I said that suggests that I believe that all or a vast majority of sexual harassment cases involve rape and false imprisonment. BUT, my experience has been that cases involving sexual harassment are a narrow subset of employment cases, and that most of the issues that arise under employment agreements will still be subject to arbitration. That includes issues on noncompetes, nonsolicits, confidentiality, etc.

I do suspect that issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault are likely going to be more accute in a workplace made up of a lot of men with guns and a taste for adventure and relatively few women than they will be in the companies I represent, generally peopled with Adderesque young men with coke bottle glasses, the occassional woman techie or scientist whom they all adore but can't approach (like Hank and Eva) and a bunch of admins and marketers who date actual men, often with tatoos.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 414511)

It appears that the district court decided that some of her claims were arbitrable and some were not. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Next time, hand me an iPad with your report.

Agreed that it was stupid of the GC to press this. OTOH, it's the Fifth Circuit -- he probably figured they'd read the caption and say "Halliburton wins, whiny bitch loses."

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 414514)

Agreed that it was stupid of the GC to press this.

Nonetheless, GWU will still list him as an outstanding alumni in its promotional material.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 414514)

Agreed that it was stupid of the GC to press this. OTOH, it's the Fifth Circuit -- he probably figured they'd read the caption and say "Halliburton wins, whiny bitch loses."

To me, the interesting thing about the decision is that we all have been arguing back and forth about whether it's a good idea for these claims to be arbitrated -- essentially, whether public policy should displace the parties' agreement -- and what the court decided is that the parties hadn't agreed to arbitrate these claims at all. Now, many that's just public policy masquerading as contractual interpretation -- I've not really read the decision, so I don't know whether it stands up.

Hard to see why the Supreme Court would grant cert on such a narrow question of contract interpretation.

Re: You (all) lie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 414513)

my experience has been that cases involving sexual harassment are a narrow subset of employment cases, and that most of the issues that arise under employment agreements will still be subject to arbitration. That includes issues on noncompetes, nonsolicits, confidentiality, etc.

Not all that narrow, in my experience/understanding.

Non-competes: Can't enforce them in California, so those cases don't account for much here. (You can enforce them in a buyout contract, but not an employment contract.)

Non-solicits: Largely, though perhaps not entirely, amount to uggatz given the prohibition on non-competes.

Confidentiality: I've never seen a case in which an employer alleged that an employee breached a confidentiality obligation, where that allegation wasn't merely the tail on a very large dog of trade secret, unfair competition, misappropriation of confidential info, and other similar claims. And usually, the real beef (or, the real source of potential recovery) is the company for which the employee now works.

I do see cases that are pure employment contract -- "you promised me x percent of sales, plus a new house and a blow job if the company ever became moderately successful". Have handled both sides of such cases (never at the same time). In general, I think that this accounts for a much smaller portion of employment-related cases than do sexual harassment/discrimination claims. Similarly, I think wage-and-hour type claims are relatively small in number, compared to harassment.

I could be wrong about the above, but it's my own view and experience. I would say that I know many, many lawyers that practice exclusively, or very nearly so, in the field of employment discrimination; there are even entire firms (Littler Mendelsohn, for example) that are built mostly on such cases. I can't think of anyone I know, offhand, who exclusively handles other kinds of employment-related cases (and I'm excluding the "tail" cases), other than wage-and-hour stuff.