KBR Claims Crime Was "Distinct Risk" In Jamie Leigh Jones Case

Illustration for article titled KBR Claims Crime Was "Distinct Risk" In Jamie Leigh Jones Case

Mega defense contractor Kellogg, Brown, and Root is preparing to fight former employee Jamie Leigh Jones over her right to settle her suit with the company, all the way to the Supreme Court. Its strategy? Destroying Jones' credibility.


Jones is suing KBR for a painful and complicated reason - after she was drugged and allegedly gang-raped while working for the contractor, KBR chose to lock her in a shipping container rather than investigate the charges. She eventually escaped, but is now forced to sue the company to release her from her employment agreement (which requires arbitration of all disputes) so that she can pursue a court-based solution. KBR is already reeling from Senator Franken's amendment (which penalizes government contractors that force their employees to arbitrate claims of discrimination and sexual assault - a direct result of the Jones case), but far from being contrite, the decision against them in Circuit court appears to has strengthened their resolve to force Jones to do it the KBR way. Slate reports:

The 5th Circuit, splitting 2-1, examined KBR's claim that Jones' rape was "related to" her employment and conceded that other courts have been split on the issue. The panel concluded, however, that the scope of the arbitration provision at issue "certainly stops at Jones' bedroom door." It also ruled that if Halliburton/KBR had considered her gang rape a "distinct risk" of her employment, the company "would have immediately heeded Jones' request to be placed in a private sleeping facility, instead of a barracks where the ratio of men to women was 20 to one." The panel agreed with the district court that for purposes of this litigation, "Plaintiff's bedroom should [not] be considered the workplace, even though her housing was provided by her employer."

While the decision was split, the justices have painted a clear picture of the issues involved in Jones' case. No matter how the evidence is examined, KBR is in many ways at fault for how the situation was handled. In light of the unfavorable decision, the KBR legal team has decided to play hardball, using classic victim blaming tactics to shift the focus of the case.

In addition to going after her truthfulness in its court pleadings, KBR has mounted a zealous public campaign to "correct the facts" about the Jones litigation-urging, for instance, that "Ms. Jones' allegation of rape remains unsubstantiated" and that she wasn't locked in a shipping container but rather "provided with a secure living trailer." Apparently KBR fails to appreciate the irony of demanding that all of its counter-facts come to light despite its love for secret arbitration.

What KBR fails to mention is its part in ensuring the assault remained "unsubstantiated" - instead of investigating the claim seriously, they removed Jones and put her into some form of compound. While KBR claims they provided the rape kit to the State Department, but did not provide a time frame for handover. Nor do they explain why Jones was the employee removed and placed under guard. Instead, KBR believes that relying on a classic strategy - discrediting the victim - will lead the Supreme Court to overlook their culpability in the situation.

Open the Shut Case [Slate]
KBR responds to ex-worker's gang-rape claim [Ms. Sparky/KHOU]


KBR Arbitration Awards Another Assault Victim
Jamie Leigh Jones Takes On Pro-KBR Senators On Rachel Maddow
Sen. Franken Fights KBR On Behalf Of Rape Vicitims



This is the point where I just realized — nothing makes sense anymore. If I worked for the company, and this happened on my watch, and I cared about my company and was also a fucking human being, here's how this works:

The guys who raped her get fired, immediately, and reported to proper authorities.

Jones is immediately provided with top notch healthcare, including mental healthcare. She receives and official apology from the company and from any supervisors/managers who ignored her voiced concerns over her safety.

She gets paid. I don't mean paid off, as in be quiet. I mean she gets paid for her suffering in a genuine way because she has suffered and will likely continue to suffer from the experience. She gets paid a mutually agreed upon amount.

The company immediately changes its housing policy, addresses problems with the system that allowed Jones' complaints to go unaddressed, and takes any other steps necessary to prevent this from happening again.

But instead, they want to engage in a multi-year court battle, a public relations nightmare, and confirm for everyone (including legislators) that they are in fact a bunch of money grubbing assholes happy to literally fuck over anyone who gets in their way.

It's like calling a mountain a mole-hill while simultaneously turning the mountain into a violently active volcano.