Published on December 1, 2009
In the Sudan, the BBC reported that a female Sudanese journalist, along with 12 other women, were arrested and then found guilty for wearing “indecent clothing.” Out of fear and shame some of the women pled guilty immediately and were lashed before being released. The “indecent clothing” consisted of loose fitting trousers. The journalist, Lubna Ahmed Hussein, refused to pay her fine and requested a lawyer. At the time of her arrest Ms. Hussein was employed by the United Nations. She resigned her position – which would have given her immunity – in order to bring attention to women’s rights violations in Sudan. She and two other women were tried and convicted. In an attempt to bring attention to violations against women in the Sudan, Ms. Hussein will appeal her conviction all the way to the Constitutional Court.
“When I think of my trial, I pray that my daughters will never live in fear of these ‘police of security of society’. We will only be secure once the police protect us and these laws are repealed. I also pray that the next generation will see we had the courage to fight for their future before it was too late.” (The Guardian Sept. 4, 2009)
Americans are appalled to hear of civil rights injustices in foreign countries. Through the American political system we have instituted protections for minorities, children, the disabled and women. We have laws protecting against discrimination based on skin color. We have laws that ensure a quality education for disabled children. And we have laws that protect against sexual harassment and abuse in our work environments. We assume the right to “due process” if accused of a crime and the right to file a legal complaint and have our day in court when victimized. Occasionally, American employers creatively sidestep these laws. They institute very effective loopholes that require legislative action to protect American’s rights.
The story of Jamie Leigh Jones is shocking. She is a young American woman who worked in Iraq as an employee of KBR while it was a subsidiary of Haliburton. Ms. Jones alleges that she was drugged and brutally raped by co-workers while employed by KBR. She also alleges that she was detained by KBR in a shipping container in an attempt to intimidate her into silence. KBR claims that Ms. Jones does not have the right to accuse her attackers in a court of law because her contract requires mandatory binding arbitration to resolve claims against KBR. In arbitration proceedings, the employer hires an arbitrator, the proceedings are not recorded and the employee has no right to appeal. Arbitration clauses in employment contracts are a common protection for American defense contractors. Employees forfeit their right to a judge and jury and the defense contractors get to keep their dirty secrets.
Similar to Lubna Ahmed Hussein, Ms. Jones has not stayed quiet. She has taken her case to court as a civil suit and recently won the right to be heard in a court of law. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that her alleged injuries were not related to her employment and not covered by her employment contract. Additionally, to help and support other victims, Ms. Jones has set up the Jamie Leigh Foundation. According to its web site the Jamie Leigh Foundation is:
an official 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to helping United States citizens and legal residents who are victims of crime while working abroad for government contractors and subcontractors. We demand government contract corporations and government entities to act responsibly, and be held accountable to provide a work environment free of sexual harassment, and limit the potential for abuse.
In an attempt to fix what is broken about arbitration, Senator Al Franken introduced an Amendment (S. 2588) to the FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill on October 6, 2009. It passed the Senate by a vote of 68-30. This amendment would restrict funding to defense contractors who require employees to sign a contract where they only have access to mandatory binding arbitration. It protects an employee’s right to a court hearing in the case of sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, as well as Title VII civil rights claims. It does not require contractors to change or modify existing employment contracts. Basically, it provides defense contract employees the same rights all Americans have.
It is an incredible twist to this story that the amendment is at risk of being stripped out of the Defense Appropriations Bill by Democrats. The Defense Department does not believe the amendment is enforceable and Democratic Senator Dan Inouye of Hawaii is under tremendous pressure from defense contractors to remove or change the amendment. However, contrary to what Republicans are saying about the Obama administration’s not supporting the amendment, the Department of Defense has suggested an alternate way of addressing the issue, stating that "It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse." A separate bill disallowing American companies from using mandatory binding arbitration would be a statutory prohibition. This may be the best solution for a loophole that is allowing criminals employed by defense contractors to rape and abuse their female co-workers.
I have heard it said that defense contract issues are complicated. Protecting employees based on gender is not complicated. It is a choice that should be easy. I have heard that Muslim law in the Sudan is complicated. Due process is not complicated. It is a choice that should be easy. These women’s stories share more than the similarity of abuse. In both cases it appears that government is abdicating its responsibility to protect its citizens.
Jamie Leigh Jones and Lubna Hussein live worlds apart. They have different backgrounds, different experiences, different obstacles, but they have the same fight. They are working to protect women from physical, emotional and mental abuse.
“When I think of my trial,” Lubna Hussein said, “I pray my fight won’t be in vain. For wearing trousers, I face 40 lashes. This is the brutal reality of Sudan: we live in fear of those who should protect us.”
In a similar statement Jamie Leigh Jones said: “This amendment makes all the hard times that I have gone through, when going public with such a personal trajedy, worth every tear shed from telling and retelling my horrific experience. I know this amendment will save so many in the future.”
These women are on opposite sides of the same coin: due process and a fight for civil rights for Ms. Hussein and the right to a safe work environment and a fair court hearing for Ms. Jones. They are attempting to use the law to promote a better living and working experience for future generations of women. They are brave, strong, and stalwart in their advocacy for womens rights. Their sacrifces and efforts are heroic.