What is the issue is forcing people into arbitrations, especially arbitrations with larger corporations, such as KBR. People should be allowed to choose. Or don’t you agree that people have the right to choose?

You’re also misleading in your statement about Barker bringing suit against the person who raped her. In this specific instance, the issue has to do with her right to bring a civil suit in a court of law against KBR.

As for privacy of the proceedings, if this case had happened in a court of law, I could easily find all the documentation associated with it, without having to ask anyone’s permission. I notice that you didn’t ask KBR to publish their documents associated with this arbitration. Why not ask KBR for their copies of what little documentation there is?

As for whether the women would still be in litigation in the court system, perhaps, perhaps not. A court system does have more rigorous proceedings, which do take more time. But that’s because the courts are required to ensure that all points of law are met, and all involved parties are given an equal opportunity to be heard.

Justice takes time.

As for the women “winning” these arbitration proceedings, you seem to think that winning is equivalent to getting a cash award. These women also wanted to be heard, to have their day in court. To hold KBR responsible, and ensure that what happened to them didn’t happen to other women.

They may have won in arbitration, but did they really win? Was justice served? Unlikely.

If arbitration is so fair, and so unbiased, and so cheap, why would we need to have mandatory arbitration clauses? Wouldn’t people voluntarily choose arbitration if it were the better option?

Yet, these women fought arbitration, went to court to try to assert their Constitutional rights to a trial in front of a jury of their peers. Doesn’t strike me that “mandatory arbitration” is something consumers want.