Support the Franken Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act for 2010 (S. Amdt. 2558)
Recipient: Sen. Daniel Inouye and Rep. John Murtha
The Honorable Daniel Inouye
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable John Murtha
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairmen Inouye and Murtha:
On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation’s oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, as well as the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Partnership for Women & Families, Public Citizen, National Employment Lawyers Association, and other organizations focused on protecting our nation’s civil rights laws, we write to express our strong support for the Franken Amendment to H.R. 3326, the Defense Appropriations Act for 2010 (S. Amdt. 2558). Please ensure that this amendment remains a part of the final bill as it was passed by the Senate, without being weakened.
S. Amdt. 2558 would deny taxpayer dollars to contractors that force secret, binding arbitration on their employees in cases of sexual abuse and harassment and other egregious forms of unlawful job discrimination, such as creating racially and religiously hostile work environments, that are prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The amendment recognizes that civil rights are meaningless if they cannot be enforced in a court of law.
The Franken amendment was drafted in response to the horrific case of Jamie Leigh Jones, who was viciously assaulted, gang-raped, and sexually harassed by co-workers while working for Halliburton/Kellogg Brown & Root in Iraq. After she reported the incident, her employers confined her in a shipping container and prevented her from contacting her family. As a matter of law, these actions would constitute both unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII and the intentional torts of assault, battery, and infliction of emotional distress (among others). Yet when Ms. Jones attempted to sue Halliburton for the harm she endured, she was denied access to the courts; the company insisted that she submit her claims to secret, binding arbitration instead. And Ms. Jones’s case is not an isolated incident.
It is not enough to deny funding to contractors that mandate arbitration of sexual-assault cases. Claims under Title VII must also be included; otherwise, the entire purpose of S. Amdt. 2558 would be defeated. Title VII covers sexual intimidation and the maintenance of hostile work environments – conduct that, if permitted to continue, escalates into the kind of sexually lawless environment that Ms. Jones faced. It is illogical for Congress to address sexual violence but not the harassment and other conduct that lead directly to, and, if addressed, would effectively prevent, such violence.
Moreover, unless Title VII claims are included, other forms of discrimination – not connected to sexual violence but nevertheless egregious and intolerable – would continue to be swept under the rug of forced arbitration. Indeed, defense-contractor employees have too often been subjected to racial or religious harassment and discrimination in violation of our nation’s fundamental civil rights protections. For example, in the case of Mauldin v. Halliburton, an African-American Jehovah’s witness who was the only black driver for Halliburton in Tyler, Texas, alleged that he was called “n—-” and “jigaboo” on multiple occasions by his supervisor and co-workers and was the persistent target of racist jokes. He was also the only driver whose hours were reduced, and his requests for days off to attend religious services were denied without any attempt to accommodate them. After he complained about this conduct, Mr. Mauldin alleges, Halliburton retaliated against him by claiming he had falsified time-records – a claim that he categorically denies. But because of Halliburton’s forced arbitration policy, Mr. Mauldin’s claims were relegated to a secret arbitration tribunal.
S. 2558 is narrowly tailored to the problem of forced arbitration of unlawful discrimination by defense contractors. It applies prospectively only; it applies only to sexual-violence and Title VII cases; it applies only to funds appropriated for 2010. Perhaps most important, it applies only to contractors that impose involuntary arbitration on their employees as a condition of employment. Companies that afford their employees a truly voluntary choice of arbitration – i.e., after a dispute arises – remain completely free to do so under this amendment.
We respectfully urge your support of this amendment and of its coverage of Title VII as well as sexual-violence claims. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important issue with you further. Please feel free to contact us, or LCCR Counsel Lisa Bornstein, at 202-466-3311. Thank you for your consideration.
Wade Henderson
President & CEO
LCCR
Nancy Zirkin
Executive Vice President
LCCR
AFL-CIO
American Association for Justice
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian American Justice Center
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Center for Responsible Lending
Consumer Action
Consumer Federation of America
Homeowners for Better Building
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Legal Momentum
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum
National Association of Consumer Advocates
National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients)
National Consumers League
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Senior Citizens Law Center
National Women’s Law Center
Public Citizen
U.S. PIRG
Women Employed
Workplace Fairness
cc:
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader of the Senate
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House