Four, short years ago, Jamie Leigh Jones was 20 years old at the time when she survived a horrific attack. Jones had been sent to work in Iraq just four days prior to being violently raped and brutalized in her own barracks by fellow Halliburton employees. While it is known that several people raped Jones repeatedly, she was not able to recall the incident because her assailants had drugged her. Additionally, she was only able to identify one of her attackers’ identities, as he remained in the room with her after the assault.

The horrific experience had left Jones physically mauled, emotionally scarred and left without justice. Regardless of the tremendous physical and circumstantial evidence present, the Department of Justice declined to investigate her case, while Halliburton was less than cooperative during the situation. KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, stated that despite the severity of the issue, Jones’ case must go to arbitration. Understandably, Jones is seeking justice despite the seemingly unyielding system. Today, Jones is a leading advocate for arbitration reform and is pursuing her right to sue. Additionally, she wants Halliburton to be held liable, stating “ I want corporate accountability.” [1]

While it seems absurd Jones’ case would not go to criminal court given its severity, this is not considered a situation out of the ordinary. In actuality, arbitration is more likely than not to be the legal option in disputes involving American corporations, their employees, and customers. Without even knowing it, most people sign away their right to be heard in court if an incident is to occur, which is referred to as pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration. This means that employees and consumers are not able to sue the company they have a dispute with, but instead must settle it in a private court chosen by the company. As one would imagine, the companies are almost always relieved of charges. “ Overall, consumers lost 94 percent of the time.” [2]

Even in the rare instances when arbitrators rule in favor of the plaintiff, unfairness and bias remain within the system. A former arbitrator for the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), Elizabeth Bartholet, ruled in favor of the consumer once after 19 other cases where the ruling was in favor of companies, ultimately resulting in her being asked to leave. Undoubtedly, it was because she did not rule in favor of the corporation. “ I called the NAF and spoke to the case manager, and she agreed the reason I was being removed was because I had ruled this one case against the credit card company.” [3]

Today, with the Arbitration Fairness Act and advocates like Jamie Leigh Jones, there is an effort to restore the rights of consumers and employees to be able to sue a corporation if a dispute arises. Although some critics like Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, say its end result will leave the courts inundated with lawsuits, it is necessary for arbitration to be a voluntary option in order to protect innocent victims like Jamie Leigh Jones.

For more information please see

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105153315

[1] Jamie Leigh Jones “ Rape Case Highlights Arbitration Debate” National Public Radio (June 9, 2009).

[2] David Arkush “Rape Case Highlights Arbitration Debate” National Public Radio (June 9, 2009).

[3] Elizabeth Bartholet “Rape Case Highlights Arbitration Debate” National Public Radio (June 9, 2009).