ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Halliburton

NEWS FLASH

BP: Halliburton ‘Intentionally Destroyed Evidence’ Of Culpability In Gulf Oil Spill | The U.S. faced the worst oil spill on record in 2010 after the explosion of the oil giant BP’s rig killed 11 people and spilled 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. More than a year later, those accountable are still trying to evade responsibility. In fact, according to BP, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. — the company contracted on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig — “intentionally destroyed evidence” to avoid incurring sanctions in a lawsuit against the company. BP alleges that Halliburton not only failed to provide “inexplicably missing” computer modeling results, but destroyed evidence on cement testing “to eliminate any risk that this evidence would be used against it at trial.”Halliburton is reviewing the motion but stated, “we believe that the conclusions that BP is asking the court to draw is without merit.” A federal report released in September that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean all “violated a number of federal offshore safety regulations” and share responsibility for the spill.

NEWS FLASH

Jury Selection Begins In Jamie Leigh Jones Rape Case | Six years ago, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang raped by her co-workers and then imprisoned in a shipping container without food or water while working for Halliburton in Iraq. Yet when Jones sought to hold Halliburton accountable in court, she was told that her employment contract contained a forced arbitration clause, which required any dispute between her and Halliburton to be handled in privatized, corporate-owned arbitration. Today, thanks to a law spearheaded by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), Jones finally will get a jury trial. Jury selection began today.

Politics

Halliburton Brings In Record $5.3 Billion In First Quarter, Credits Increased U.S. Oil Production Under Obama

Oil giant Halliburton reported record revenues in the first quarter of 2011, pulling in $5.3 billion. In a severe blow to the right-wing’s daily talking points, Halliburton attributes their robust earnings to increased domestic production under Obama:

Halliburton’s consolidated revenue in the first quarter of 2011 was $5.3 billion, compared to $3.8 billion in the first quarter of 2010…These increases were attributable to increased activity in United States land…

“I am extremely pleased with our Q1 results, as overall revenue in the first quarter set a company record of $5.3 billion. North America delivered strong performance as margins progressed due to increased activity…” said Dave Lesar, chairman, president and chief executive officer.

Lesar is confident that, under Obama, domestic energy production opportunities will continue to grow: “We have been confident about the robust outlook in North America, and the prospect of higher activity in the coming quarters has made us more bullish in the strength of our business in 2011 and beyond.”

The right wing has consistently and falsely accused Obama of choking off domestic supply. American Solutions, an organization funded by the fossil fuel industry and controlled by Newt Gingrich, accuses Obama on a daily basis of blocking domestic oil production. In reality, under Obama, U.S. oil production has reached its highest levels in nearly a decade.

Despite record revenue and profits, Halliburton and the rest of the oil industry continue to receive billions in taxpayer subsidies. Last night, John Boehner said he’d be willing to consider eliminating these subsidies, but his spokesman quickly walked back that statement. Of course, less than two months ago, Boehner voted to preserve all subsidies for the oil industry.

Climate Progress

Spill Commission: Hubris, Greed, And Corruption Led To Gulf Disaster

The president’s commission on the BP oil disaster has found that it was an “avoidable” catastrophe “rooted in systemic failures by industry management” and “by failures of government to provide effective regulatory oversight of offshore drilling.” With a minute-by-minute retelling of the corners cut and mistakes made before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, the bipartisan commission reconstructs how BP, Halliburton, and Transocean repeatedly chose profit-taking risks, then ignored the warning signs that the risks were going bad — while the hobbled Minerals Management Service, with limited oversight and access, trusted the oil officials’ judgment that everything was under control.

With a political system designed to protect oil companies from sufficient oversight, systemic greed, hubris, and corruption led to the deaths of 11 rig workers and the poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico, the preview of the commission’s final report, due next week, has found.

Greed: The spill commission identified nine different instances in which BP, Halliburton, and Transocean made decisions that saved time — and thus money — but increased the risk of catastrophe:

None of BP’s (or the other companies’) decisions in Figure 4.10 appear to have been subject to a comprehensive and systematic risk-analysis, peer-review, or management of change process. The evidence now available does not show that the BP team members (or other companies’ personnel) responsible for these decisions conducted any sort of formal analysis to assess the relative riskiness of available alternatives.

For example, BP chose to use an untested mixture of re-used fluids during the negative pressure test, in order to exploit a loophole in the Resource and Conservation Recovery Act to avoid having to dispose of them onshore as hazardous waste; Halliburton didn’t wait for test results confirming the safety of the cement mixture; and Transocean ran multiple operations while conducting the hazardous effort to close the well.

Hubris: Repeatedly, the drilling companies assumed that the choices they made didn’t increase risks, or simply believed that the likelihood of disaster was so low that warning signs were ignored. A central example was how they glossed over test results that the cement job that was supposed to seal the well had failed:

Given the risk factors surrounding the primary cement job and other prior unusual events (such as difficulty converting the float valves), the BP Well Site Leaders and, to the extent they were aware of the issues, the Transocean crew should have been particularly sensitive to anomalous pressure readings and ready to accept that the primary cement job could have failed. It appears instead they started from the assumption that the well could not be flowing, and kept running tests and coming up with various explanations until they had convinced themselves their assumption was correct.

Transocean had “an eerily similar near-miss on one of its rigs in the North Sea four months prior to the Macondo blowout,” when an apparently successful negative pressure test led rig workers to miss warning signs of a blowout. “Had the rig crew been adequately informed of the prior event and trained on its lessons,” the commission concludes, “events at Macondo may have unfolded very differently.”

Corruption: The commission also found fault with the Minerals Management Service, which left the companies largely to their own devices, deferring to their last-minute decisions that set the disaster in motion:

Many critical aspects of drilling operations were left to industry to decide without agency review. For instance, there was no requirement, let alone protocol, for a negative-pressure test, the misreading of which was a major contributor to the Macondo blowout. Nor were there detailed requirements related to the testing of the cement essential for well stability.

Responsibilities for these shortfalls are best not assigned to MMS alone. The root cause can be better found by considering how, as described in Chapter 3, efforts to expand regulatory oversight, tighten safety requirements, and provide funding to equip regulators with the resources, personnel, and training needed to be effective were either overtly resisted or not supported by industry, members of Congress, and several administrations. As a result, neither the regulations nor the regulators were asking the tough questions or requiring the demonstration of preparedness that could have avoided the Macondo disaster.

In what may turn out to be an act worthy of criminal prosecution, Halliburton covered up test results finding that the cement slurry chosen by BP for the Macondo well “was unstable.” Instead, “Halliburton personnel responded instead by modifying the test conditions—specifically, the pre-testing conditioning time—and thereby achieving an arguably successful test result.” Furthermore, “Halliburton documents strongly suggest that the final foam stability test results indicating a stable slurry may not even have been available before Halliburton pumped the primary cement job at Macondo. If true, Halliburton pumped foam cement into the well at Macondo at a time when all available test data showed the cement would be, in fact, unstable.”

Economy

Halliburton May Pay $500 Million To Nigerian Government To Settle Case And Keep Cheney Out Of Jail

As ThinkProgress previously reported, earlier this month, the Nigerian government moved to “charge former Vice President Dick Cheney in a massive bribery case involving $180 million in kickbacks paid to Nigerian lawmakers, who awarded a $6 billion natural gas pipeline contract to Halliburton subsidiary KBR when Cheney was running the company.” As a part of the charge, the Nigerian government is seeking an arrest warrant through Interpol for the former vice president.

Now, GlobalPost is reporting that the company is in talks with the Nigerian government to arrive at a settlement. Sources within the Nigerian government informed GlobalPost that a possible plea bargain could “involve a $500 million settlement“:

Halliburton is planning to make a plea bargain in former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s corruption case, Nigerian officials told GlobalPost. [...]

However, Halliburton is in talks with Nigerian officials to make a plea bargain in the case, said Femi Babafemi, spokesman for Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the agency which has pressed the charges against Cheney.

“The companies are asking for a plea bargain, we are reviewing their request, we are talking with them, but we have not gone far with the talks yet,” Babafemi told GlobalPost. Although Babafemi did not give further details, other sources within the agency said the plea bargain might involve a $500 million settlement.

GlobalPost goes on to note that “Cheney and three other top executives could face sentences of three years in a Nigerian prison if convicted of the charges in the 16-count indictment.” One has to wonder how the employees and stockholders of the company feel about it possibly sacrificing half a billion dollars to keep Cheney and other executives out of jail. (HT: emptywheel)

Economy

Nigerian Government To Charge Dick Cheney In Massive Bribery Case

The Nigerian government will charge former Vice President Dick Cheney in a massive bribery case involving $180 million in kickbacks paid to Nigerian lawmakers, who awarded a $6 billion natural gas pipeline contract to Halliburton subsidiary KBR when Cheney was running the company. Godwin Obla, prosecuting counsel at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, said indictments will be lodged in a Nigerian court “in the next three days,” and an arrest warrant for Cheney “will be issued and transmitted through Interpol.”

KBR already plead guilty in the U.S. last year in relation to the bribery scheme, and along with Halliburton agreed to pay a $579 million settlement. “This bribery scheme involved both senior foreign government officials and KBR corporate executives who took actions to insulate themselves from the reach of U.S. law enforcement,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Rita M. Glavin of the Criminal Division at the time. Cheney was indeed a “KBR corporate executive” at the time, but was not specifically charged. The case revolves largely around the actions of London lawyer Jeffrey Tesler, who maintained strong connections with the Nigerian government and was hired by Halliburton subsidiaries to funnel money to them in order to obtain lucrative contracts. Halliburton Watch explains the Cheney connection:

[In June 2004], Halliburton fires Albert Jack Stanley after investigators say he received $5 million in “improper” payments from Mr. Tesler…. Halliburton spokesperson, Wendy Hall, said that during the years he ran KBR, Mr. Stanley reported to David Lesar, Halliburton’s president and chief operating officer at the time and CEO today. Mr. Lesar reported to Mr. Cheney when Cheney was chief executive…. According to the Dallas Morning News, “Mr. Cheney ran Halliburton when one of four suspicious payments occurred.” [...]

The Wall Street Journal reports on newly disclosed evidence by Halliburton, including notes written by M.W. Kellogg employees during the mid-1990s in which they discussed bribing Nigerian officials. The Financial Times of London said the evidence “raises questions over what Mr Cheney knew – or should have known – about one of the largest contracts awarded to a Halliburton subsidiary.”

A Cheney spokesperson told Reuters he had no comment, but would later today. It is important to note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — of which Halliburton is a member — recently lobbied to weaken an important U.S. law that “stops American-based multinational firms from bribing foreign governments in order to win special business advantages,” as ThinkProgress detailed in October.

Security

Big Oil’s Long History Of Compromising National Security For Profit

Our guest blogger is Rebecca Lefton, of CAP’s Progressive Media.

Pan-Am 103Months after the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, BP is delaying deepwater drilling off the coast of Libya and exploratory drilling off of the Scottish Shetland islands. The delays also reflect the political pressure BP faces because of its lobbying efforts “over the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya that led to the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.” Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is planning to send members to the UK and Scotland to question witnesses on the role of BP in the release of the Lockerbie bomber. This development follows the postponement of a Senate Foreign Relations hearing because the witnesses declined to show.

As we recently reported, 2010 lobbying disclosures reveal that Big Oil is influencing foreign policy by lobbying on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act as it is debated in the Senate. But this is not anything new. The oil industry and related trade associations have been lobbying to secure their bottom lines by risking our national safety for decades, including advocating for the removal of sanctions against oil-rich countries Iran and Libya.

Big Oil Fights Libyan Sanctions

The U.S. imposed unilateral sanctions in 1986 that froze Libyan assets, and banned all trade and financial dealings with the country. Following the Lockerbie bombing in December 1988 when a Libyan bomb exploded Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York killing 270 people, Congress passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) in 1996. The act was intended to limit the flow of revenues that could be used to finance terrorist actions or obtain weapons of mass destruction, and to put pressure on Libya to comply with UN resolutions that included extraditing for trial those involved with the Lockerbie bombing.

Dick Cheney, then a former secretary of defense, worked hand in hand with oil companies to pursue the removal of sanctions against Iran and Libya, which they argued hurt business. In June, 1998, Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, said in a speech at the Cato Institute:

Our government has become sanctions-happy.

Working closely with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and front group USA* Engage, Cheney lobbied to lift sanctions against Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Burma, Nigeria, India and Pakistan during his tenure at Halliburton which lasted from 1995 to 2000 before joining the White House as George W. Bush’s vice president.

USA*Engage, Halliburton, and Conoco

USA*Engage is a coalition front group opposing unilateral sanctions made up of more than 400 — and at that point more than 670 — companies, trade associations and other organizations from all sectors of the U.S. economy. Halliburton was a principal member of USA*Engage, whose members also included oil giants Conoco, Mobil, and Texaco. USA*Engage and Halliburton shared lobbyist Don Deline, vice president for government affairs at Halliburton. Deline served as Chair of USA*Engage from 2000 until June 2003 when he was replaced by Robert W. Haines, then Manager of International Relations for Exxon Mobil.

Conoco has been a strong supporter of USA*Engage, and is also a member of the Iranian Trade Association, an organization formed in 1997 opposing U.S. sanctions against Iran. According to The New York Times, Conoco “led the effort to repeal the Iran-Libyan Sanctions Act, which prohibits American companies from investing in those countries, paving the way for European and Asian oil conglomerates to develop some of the best oil and gas fields in the world.” The Times points out that Conoco had a long history of doing business in Libya, pumping 500,000 barrels of oil a day for 47 years until sanctions were imposed under Reagan in 1986. The company’s strategy also looked to Iran for its offshore gas deposits.

Dick Cheney’s Secret Energy Task Force

As one of his first acts in office, President Bush appointed Cheney to take the lead in crafting a new energy policy for the United States. Cheney created a secret energy task force that was strongly represented by the oil industry and its trade association representatives, including BP, Shell, Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Archie Dunham, then CEO of Conoco and board member of API, met with Cheney on March 21, 2001 while the energy task force was crafting its report.

An April draft of the energy task force report included language that would lift sanctions against Iraq, Iran, and Libya to advance “energy security” through increased production of oil resources in these countries. The final National Energy Policy Report did not refer specifically to these three countries. However, it did include a recommendation that the President direct the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Commerce to review and reform sanctions factoring in “energy security.” API said it was disappointed the report did not specifically recommend easing sanctions against Iran and Libya. Nonetheless, the report reflected the influence of the oil industry-based task force with its emphasis on “energy security” — that is, access to international oil and gas resources in unstable regions — stating:

Energy security must be a priority of U.S. trade and foreign policy.

At the same time, Congress was in a heated debate about whether or not to renew ILSA for five more years, which was being fueled by the oil industry’s push to block its reauthorization. Dunham was a witness before Congress in May, 2001 opposing the extension of ILSA. As the sunset period for ILSA approached, Bush was walking a fine line over the White House’s position on the sanctions, in part because Bush did not “want to look like a puppet of Big Oil” but oil companies would become enraged if the administration were to support renewal. In a seeming compromise, the Bush administration pushed Congress to limit the extension to only two years instead of five, “once the administration completes reviews of Iran policy and the overall use of sanctions.” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who introduced the bill to renew the law, said:

I hope that the president hears our message and puts to rest the idea that ILSA might expire or be weakened because ILSA has been one of the best weapons our country has had in our war against terrorism, because it’s aimed at cutting off the flow of money that terrorist groups depend on to fund their attacks and operations.

Despite Cheney’s efforts on behalf of Big Oil, that August Congress voted overwhelmingly to extend the sanctions for another five years.

The timeline below is a glimpse of the engagement of Big Oil in the national security dialogue and the role of key players like former Vice President Dick Cheney in influencing the debate: Read more

Economy

Liz Cheney Sticks Up For Halliburton: ‘I Don’t Know What Planet You Live On’

This morning on ABC This Week, Arianna Huffington brought up the role the Bush administration played in creating a regulatory system “full of loopholes, full of cronies and lobbyists filling the very agencies they’re supposed to be overseeing,” especially when it comes to the oil industry. Indeed, a 2008 report by the Interior Department’s Inspector General found that workers at the Minerals Management Service were “partying, having sex, using drugs and accepting gifts and ski trips and golf outings from energy company representatives with whom they did government business.” She then tried to talk about the role Halliburton, the energy giant formerly run by Dick Cheney, has in the oil spill, but she was soon cut off by Liz Cheney, who rushed to defend her dad and the corporation:

HUFFINGTON: Right here, we have the poster child of Bush-Cheney crony capitalism. Halliburton involved in this, and we haven’t said about that. They after all were responsible for cementing the well. Here’s Halliburton, after it defrauded the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars –

CHENEY: Arianna, I don’t know what planet you live on, but that’s not –

HUFFINGTON: — it’s involved again. I’m living on this planet. … Halliburton was involved in this. How can you say it is not?

TAPPER: Well, Halliburton was cementing the pipe.

HUFFINGTON: How can you say Halliburton has no relationship?

CHENEY: Her assertion that Halliburton defrauded the U.S. government –

HUFFINGTON: It did. It did.

CHENEY: It was Bush-Cheney cronyism is the left talking point –

HUFFINGTON: It was — hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq.

CHENEY: Arianna, is absolutely not true. It is absolutely not true.

Watch it:

First of all, Halliburton was involved in the current oil spill, as both Huffington and host Jake Tapper pointed out. From the Wall Street Journal:

An oil-drilling procedure called cementing is coming under scrutiny as a possible cause of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico that has led to one of the biggest oil spills in U.S. history, drilling experts said Thursday. [...]

The scrutiny on cementing will focus attention on Halliburton Co., the oilfield-services firm that was handling the cementing process on the rig, which burned and sank last week. The disaster, which killed 11, has left a gusher of oil streaming into the Gulf from a mile under the surface. … According to Transocean Ltd., the operator of the drilling rig, Halliburton had finished cementing the 18,000-foot well shortly before the explosion.

Natalie Roshto, whose husband died after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, has filed a lawsuit against BP and oil rig owner Transocean for violating “numerous statutes and regulations.” The suit also names Halliburton, claiming that prior to the disaster, it was “engaged in cementing operations of the well and well cap and, upon information and belief, improperly and negligently performed these duties, which was a cause of the explosion.” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) has also sent a letter to Halliburton seeking more details about its role. (Josh Dorner and Rebecca Lefton of CAPAF have more here and here on Cheney’s ties to this disaster.)

Second of all, Halliburton became notorious for its malfeasance in Iraq. It allegedly tried to cover up the gang rape of one of its contractors, knowingly exposed U.S. troops to deadly toxins, and ignored warnings of unsafe electrical wiring that led to the death of U.S. soldiers. In 2007, federal auditors told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the government had wasted $10 billion on “overpriced contracts or undocumented costs.” Of that amount, $2.7 billion was charged by Halliburton.

Transcript: Read more

Economy

BP And Halliburton Build Legal Teams, Attempt To Buy Off Government Officials

BPSign2 Facing possible jail time for their roles in the largest oil spill in American history, BP and Halliburton are building high-powered legal teams with “deep Department of Justice and White House ties.” But the companies are pursuing other means to defend themselves as well.

Halliburton’s campaign donations have spiked as it tries to curry favor with key members of Congress investigating the disaster. The company donated $17,000 in May, making it “the busiest donation month for Halliburton’s PAC since September 2008,” Politico reports. Thirteen of the 14 contributions from May went to Republicans, while seven went to members of Congress who are “on committees with oversight of the oil spill and its aftermath”:

About one week before executive Timothy Probert appeared before the House Energy and Commerce’s investigative subcommittee, Halliburton donated $1,500 to Ranking Republican Joe Barton’s reelection effort. It was Halliburton’s second-largest donation of the month — topped only by $2,500 to former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who is running for the Senate.

In the Senate, Idaho Republican Mike Crapo, who serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson, who serves on the Commerce Committee and North Carolina Republican Richard Burr (N.C.), who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, all got $1,000. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also got $1,000.

Meanwhile, a Hill analysis found that primarily during the Bush administration, BP and other oil companies “paid for dozens of trips and meals for officials” from the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Homeland Security — agencies deeply involved in the regulation of oil exploration and spill cleanup. BP had the “highest tab for gifts to government officials” of all oil and gas companies:

BP and its affiliates — BP America and BP Exploration — show up in the gift reports at least 16 different times, paying for meals as well as for oil and gas industry seminars and tours of oil facilities. The cost of the gifts totaled more than $7,200.

Only two industry-funded trips took place during the first nine months of President Obama’s administration. In 2004, BP paid for a group of Interior officials to visit an offshore rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The group included then-deputy secretary J. Steven Griles, who later went to prison for his role in Jack Abramoff scandal. In 2005, BP paid for travel and meals for then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton and then-Minerals Management Service (MMS) Director Johnnie Burton to attended the dedication ceremony of another offshore rig in the Gulf. BP also paid for officials from the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service to visit Prudhoe Bay, Alaska over a period of several years. A recent Interior Inspector General report covering 2005 to 2007 found a “culture of lax oversight and cozy ties to industry.” Since January of 2008, BP lobbyists have spent $30 million to influence legislation, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Some coastal governors have benefited from BP as well. BP and other oil companies gave Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) $1.8 million dollars for his campaign, and since the spill, he’s been aggressively downplaying the disaster and encouraging people to visit his state’s oily beaches. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) traveled to a BP-funded conference in Houston last month “to lobby aggressively to drill for oil and natural gas without delay.” Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) dismissed potential BP negligence by calling the spill an “act of God” at a trade association funded by BP in May.

Economy

Halliburton/KBR Goes After Rape Survivor Jamie Leigh Jones’ Personal Integrity In Its Supreme Court Petition

Jamie Leigh Jones In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. The attack occurred while she was out with a “small group of Halliburton firefighters,” just four days after her arrival in Iraq. After taking a few sips of her drink, she later woke up in the barracks, “naked” and “severely beaten.” Her “breasts were so badly mauled that she is permanently disfigured.”

In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter.

Jones tried to sue the company for failing to protect her, but KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract — created for the company under the tenure of then-CEO Dick Cheney — warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration, without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. Basically, KBR argued that Jones’ brutal rape was a workplace injury — nothing more. But in September, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Jones. “Jones’ allegations do not ‘touch matters’ related to her employment, let alone have a ‘significant relationship’ to her employment contract,” wrote the court.

KBR is now petitioning the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling. The contractor is personally going after Jones’ integrity to argue that she shouldn’t have a fair and open hearing. Stephanie Mencimer from Mother Jones reports:

On Jan. 19, it petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing Jones to press her case in a civil court rather than in arbitration. Among its many arguments in favor of a high court hearing: that Jones is a relentless self-promoter who has “sensationalize[d] her allegations against the KBR Defendants in the media, before the courts, and before Congress.” … KBR also suggests that much of Jones’ story is fabricated. The company says in a footnote, “Many, if not all, of her allegations against the KBR Defenandants are demonstrably false. The KBR Defendants intend to vigorously contest Jones’s allegations and show that her claims against the KBR Defendants are factually and legally untenable.”

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 signed into law by President Obama in December contained an amendment by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) — inspired by Jones’ story — that prohibits defense contractors from restricting their employees’ abilities to take workplace discrimination, battery, and sexual assault cases to court. Mencimer notes that in its petition, KBR is “clearly miffed about the Franken Amendment, which it credits Jones with getting passed.”

Featured

Shayne aka Cigna says: “Well you would think that if Jones’ allegations are false then KBR would be glad to have testimony released to the public.”

Older

Switch to Mobile