Alleged Halliburton/KBR Gang-Rape of Employee in Iraq

[LostAngeles]

ABC story here

A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job. ...

Over two years later, the Justice Department has brought no criminal charges in the matter. In fact, ABC News could not confirm any federal agency was investigating the case.

Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law.

"It's very troubling," said Dean John Hutson of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. "The way the law presently stands, I would say that they don't have, at least in the criminal system, the opportunity for justice."

...

Since no criminal charges have been filed, the only other option, according to Hutson, is the civil system, which is the approach that Jones is trying now. But Jones' former employer doesn't want this case to see the inside of a civil courtroom.

KBR has moved for Jones' claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom. It says her employment contract requires it. ...

In short, the woman worked for KBR, who was owned at the time by Halliburton. She allegedly was gang-raped and then placed into a container under guard. A sympathetic guard loaned her a cell-phone which she used to call her father, who called his Congressman, who called the State Department, who sent out people from the embassy to go rescue her. The rape kit, done by Army doctors was apparently turned over to KBR, who was conducting the investigation, who lost it. Due to loopholes in the law, criminal charges will probably never be brought, leaving only the prospect of a civil case.

 

[Puppycow]

I think this will get a lot of coverage because she's pretty.

Another example of Bremmer's incompetance. Civilian contracters immune to any law. What a great idea!

 

[Darth Rotor]

ABC story here

In short, the woman worked for KBR, who was owned at the time by Halliburton. She allegedly was gang-raped and then placed into a container under guard. A sympathetic guard loaned her a cell-phone which she used to call her father, who called his Congressman, who called the State Department, who sent out people from the embassy to go rescue her. The rape kit, done by Army doctors was apparently turned over to KBR, who was conducting the investigation, who lost it. Due to loopholes in the law, criminal charges will probably never be brought, leaving only the prospect of a civil case.

Why was the rape kit administered by Army doctors? I will guess they were the only folks who had any at the time, and so were helping State out as best they could.

Why, then, is the material turned over to KBR?

I wonder if something in the contract covered stuff like that. There are some privacy issues, for this lady, that seem to me have been massively missed.

More to follow, I am sure.

From some KBR spokesman:

"The safety and security of all employees remains KBR's top priority," it said in a statement. "Our commitment in this regard is unwavering

Evidence suggests otherwise. May I ask why the company did not immediately discipline the people who attacked their fellow employee? In my company, if a few of my co workers, male, raped a femal co worker, the least that would happen is a firing, and perhaps a phone call to the police.

The story implies that the men involved were not fired. I wonder if this is true, or if we are missing information.

DR

 

[Beerina]

It does start to take a Kennedy assassination CT aspect to it, with the number of higher-ups helping to do the coverup, bizarrely, rather than blowing the lid off it.

It does seem bizarre why the army would turn over the kit to a private organization. Give it to the proper governmental agency, or keep it for reference if there is none as the worst case. "Well, there is no ability for criminal charges, so you might as well give it to us for our internal investigation." Whatever.

I would have thought such a law exempting contractors was for the purpose of preventing muckrakers from threatening them with legal problems for innocent transgressions, minor issues, and the like, not for shielding people from grotesque and deliberate criminality.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It does start to take a Kennedy assassination CT aspect to it, with the number of higher-ups helping to do the coverup, bizarrely, rather than blowing the lid off it.

It does seem bizarre why the army would turn over the kit to a private organization. Give it to the proper governmental agency, or keep it for reference if there is none as the worst case. "Well, there is no ability for criminal charges, so you might as well give it to us for our internal investigation." Whatever.

I would have thought such a law exempting contractors was for the purpose of preventing muckrakers from threatening them with legal problems for innocent transgressions, minor issues, and the like, not for shielding people from grotesque and deliberate criminality.

I believe the idea is that the mercenaries hired by the US to support its army are not open to being prosecuted by locals. As for US law, well it is not in the US so why should that apply?

 

[LostAngeles]

Overlawyered has some thoughts here: http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/12/halliburton_gang_rape_and_fear.html

In February 2006, Jamie Leigh Jones filed an arbitration complaint, complaining that, for her administrative assistant job with KBR in the Iraq Green Zone, she was placed in an all-male dorm for living arrangements, and a co-worker sexually assaulted her. (KBR says the co-worker claimed the sex was consensual, though Jones claims physical injuries, such as burst breast implants and torn pectoral muscles, that are plainly not consistent with consensual sex. The EEOC's Letter of Determination credited the allegation of sexual assault.)

Fifteen months later, after extensive discovery in the arbitration, Jones, who lives in Houston, and whose lawyer is based in Houston, and who worked for KBR in Houston, sued KBR and a bunch of other entities (including Halliburton, for whom she never worked, and the United States), in federal court in Beaumont, Texas. The claims were suddenly of much more outrageous conduct: the original allegation of a single he-said/she-said sexual assault was now an allegation of gang rape by several unknown John Doe rapists who worked as firemen (though she did make a claim of multiple rape to the EEOC, though it is unclear when that claim was made); she claims that after she reported the rape, "Halliburton locked her in a container" (the EEOC found that KBR provided immediate medical treatment and safety and shipped her home immediately) and she threw in an allegation that a "sexual favor" she provided a supervisor in Houston was the result of improper "influence." (But she no longer makes the implausible claim that she was living in an all-male dorm in Iraq.)

...

The original allegations are bad enough, and, if true, actionable. If the implant rupture and other physical injuries are true, I'm inclined to believe that she was raped, perhaps even gang raped. (Machismo environments like fraternity houses and athletes' dorms are responsible for a disproportionate number of gang rapes, which is why the Duke Lacrosse allegations had so much weight in the early going.) I'm inclined to believe that there was a hostile work environment, and that it was possible that KBR was not doing enough to correct that problem. I'm not currently inclined to believe that the criminal action was the employer's fault, unless the employee in question had shown signs of criminal behavior while working for KBR. And it is entirely consistent with what I know about government if Jones's allegation that the government botched the criminal investigation is true.

Of course, more facts could come to light that change my mind in either direction. There's already been a lot of discovery, but Jones's papers in court seem to focus on me-too evidence (that should eventually be held to be inadmissible) rather than evidence related to Jones. I'd love to see the pending motions for summary judgment in the arbitration that led Jones to file a second lawsuit.

And one hopes Jones realizes that she's being used by attorneys who are pursuing their own agenda to promote the litigation lobby's pet anti-consumer/pro-lawyer legislation. The shenanigans of bringing a second lawsuit and suing the irrelevant Halliburton are not helping her case if she has a legitimate one.

...

Update 2: Pajamas Media notes that portions of Jamie's website contradict the ABC story and the civil lawsuit allegations:

May 3, 2007- I was told by the state department that my rape kit was missing. The state department had previously ensured both of my parents that the rape kit had made it back to Washington before I even arrived back to the US . I had my mom call the state department to refresh their memories.

May 4, 2007- The rape kit was found, however the pictures of the bruises and the doctor's notes from that day were still (and are currently) missing.

May 7, 2007- I was told to sign a release form so that the state department agent assigned to my case could try and recover the lost pictures and doctor's notes, by giving the signed medical release form to the hospital that I went to in Baghdad and to the doctor that performed the rape kit

 

[JamesDillon]

After winning an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that her case against KBR could proceed in federal court rather than through arbitration, a Houston jury found against Ms. Jones on all of her claims against KBR last week. The jury apparently concluded that the sex was consensual.

 

[TheNooch]

After winning an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that her case against KBR could proceed in federal court rather than through arbitration, a Houston jury found against Ms. Jones on all of her claims against KBR last week. The jury apparently concluded that the sex was consensual.

Do you, or anyone you know, have any evidence of this? I, and I am sure I speak for many, would like to view this, and "decide" for myself.

 

[JamesDillon]

Do you, or anyone you know, have any evidence of this? I, and I am sure I speak for many, would like to view this, and "decide" for myself.

That the jury concluded it? The first sentence of the article I linked says "A former employee of the military contractor KBR Inc. who said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq lost her lawsuit against KBR on Friday after a federal jury in Houston concluded that the sex was consensual." Most of the other articles I've read about the verdict include the same detail. Obviously I have no independent knowledge of whether the jury's finding was correct, nor did I claim to.

 

[Darth Rotor]

James, it is what it is. To some people, an accusation is a conviction.

But do you mind my saying this?

This case smells.

 

[theprestige]

I'm still stuck on the thread title. Isn't it semantically equivalent to "Alleged Employee Gang-Rape of Halliburton/KBR in Iraq"?

 

[Travis]

I'm disappointed "Dick Cheney" wasn't worked into the title as well. I mean that was a real softball.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So if you are drugged and raped, that is consensual?

Some documents from the case.

I can understand not being able to prove your case. He said she said is not the best evidence for a jury to decide upon. But the claim by the reporter the jury decided the sex was consensual could be going too far and reflecting the reporter's bias. That adds insult to injury if the sex was after drugging the victim.

I'd like to see the court opinion.

Here's what you get when you search the AP site for the story.

Jones said the civil trial wasn't a fair fight. She said she felt she lost because the jury wasn't allowed to hear details of her attacker's past but were allowed to hear hers. Bortz said the sex was consensual.

Bortz was the "he said".

 

[JamesDillon]

So if you are drugged and raped, that is consensual?

Some documents from the case.

I can understand not being able to prove your case. He said she said is not the best evidence for a jury to decide upon. But the claim by the reporter the jury decided the sex was consensual could be going too far and reflecting the reporter's bias. That adds insult to injury if the sex was after drugging the victim.

I'd like to see the court opinion.

Here's what you get when you search the AP site for the story.Bortz was the "he said".

It isn't just this reporter; nearly every article about the verdict reports that the jury found that the sex was consensual. (E.g., here, here, and here). Maybe this is just widespread journalistic sloppiness, but I wonder if there might have been a special verdict form involved that specifically called for a finding of whether Jones consented. I can't find anything addressing that, though.

ETA: I think I've figured it out, though this is just based on late-night reminiscing of my 1L Torts class and I'd need to look at Jones's complaint to be sure. However, her primary claim was probably for battery. There is not a separate civil action for sexual assault or rape at common law, so unless Texas created one by statute, Jones's cause of action would be old-fashioned common-law battery. Consent is an affirmative defense to a battery claim, unlike criminal rape, where lack of consent is an element of the crime. What this means is that, in a civil case, the defendant has to affirmatively prove consent by a preponderance of the evidence-- the burden is not on the plaintiff to establish lack of consent. If that's right, then the jury must have found that Bortz proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Jones did in fact consent to the sexual encounter.