The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search feed instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content
| Bradshaw & Bryant PLLC

Finally, Senator Al Franken’s amendment to the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act prohibiting the government from contracting with companies who require their employees to agree to resolve certain claims, such as sexual assault, rape, assault, harassment or discrimination through arbitration is about to become law.

There was all sorts of opposition when it first passed. Remember the group of 30 Republican Senator’s that couldn’t stop talking about the need to arbitrate these claims?

The Pioneer Press did point out:

Several Republicans opposed the bill. When left-leaning Web sites and TV shows picked up the story, Republicans came off looking like they weren’t exactly sympathetic to rape victims. In fact, one sarcastic Web site — totally unconnected to Franken — was started that seemed to particularly irk Republicans. And perhaps you can see why: it was called ""

There also a time when it looked like a couple of Democrats might be working to strip the amendment out of the defense appropriations bill. As it was thought that Sen. Daniel Inouye, a Democrat from Hawaii and chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, may water down or remove the provision, due to pressure from defense-industry lobbyists who fear contractors will be susceptible to lawsuits.

But, now it’s passed and on the way to be signed. Just another victory for the Consumer and in a situation that never should have taken this long.


  1. Gravatar for Mark

    Just another full employment law for attorneys passed by (largely) attorneys. This adds huge cost and wasted time for resolution of issues which often get better results for the plaintif than court cases--where a third goes to the friendly attorney--if you win at all.

  2. Gravatar for Mike Bryant
    Mike Bryant

    Your anti lawyer trolling doesn't make any sense. List the lawyers that passed it? Good luck with coming up with a majority. Explain how it adds to costs, to give this woman or any person put through this type of incident, the ability to a full remedy? Well that cost would be to the defendants and those at fault. Thanks for taking the time to read, to bad your comment was so far off the mark.

  3. Gravatar for Mark

    Hi Mike, its my lucky day!

    But the "fox guarding the hen house" arguement aside, is it your contention that arbitration does not (or maybe only rarely) provide fair and just outcomes similar to those from trials? That would seem to be the only thing that would justify a blanket denial of arbitration. Any other reasons would only be to provide undeserved "political protection/benefit" to those that benefit from more court cases. If its not the victims who benefit (show me the evidence they do) then it has to be the trial lawyers--its certainly not the overloaded court system or the judges. I'm not anti lawyer, not against them holding politiacl office. Just want them to be fair and not take personal advantage when they are not seving some clear public good. Cheers and Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays.

  4. Gravatar for Mike Bryant
    Mike Bryant

    Do you really think i don't know who the lawyers are. Did you look at your list? Did you see the who opposed the bill? Your point is totally invalid and look for Franken all day on the list. But, you just want to troll about lawyers so the facts shouldn't get in the way.

    My point isn't that arbitration or any form of ADR is bad. I actually use them all the time as an option . The problem is when it's the only option and the companies intent is to limit what rights the injured consumer has. Guess who benefits? Do you really believe that she contracted to be raped and placed in a box and have her protections taken away on top of it? Do you really think what happened to her was fair? What kind of holiday do you think she is having?

Comments are closed.