Back in October, I wrote about Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and his praise-worthy amendment to the FY 2010 Defense appropriations bill that would bar the government from contracting with companies who prevent their employees from bringing workplace sexual assault cases to court. The amendment passed easily 68 to 30 – with the thirty senators who voted against the measure receiving a good amount of backlash – but shortly after the vote there were rumors that conferees would strip the amendment from the final bill during reconciliation with the House. Not to fear, though, because according to Sam Stein over at the Huffington Post, the Franken amendment survived, and the final language is "remarkably strong." 
 
 An aide to Franken told Stein "the substance of the language 'is unchanged,'" which means the government will not be able to contract with companies that restrict employees from going to court over charges of "assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent hiring practice[s]." Moreover, the Title VII provision of the amendment, which allows an employee to sue not only the alleged perpetrator but also the perpetrator's employer, remains in the bill as well. The amendment applies to all contracts totaling $1million or more. 
 
 There is a small loophole in the amendment, but it will be hard for contractors to get through it: 
 
 The Franken amendment includes a national security waiver, meaning that the Department of Defense could prevent a case from coming to court if it imperils safety measures. But, for that to happen, the Secretary of Defense would have to "personally explain why the waiver was used to Congress and at that point make it public," the Franken aide explained. 
 
 This solid amendment will prevent contractors from carrying out what were some of the most despicable business practices I think a company could foist on a person. 
 
 Image by Flickr user Aaron Landry used under a Creative Commons license. ||||| ​ 
 
 "In 2008, she was transferred to Texas and worked as an administrative associate in the dispatch office at the Alvarado Camp. Although a good, dedicated and productive employee, she was terminated on June 3, 2009, when she apparently violated the company's policy against procreation." 
 
 To her knowledge, Lynda was the only employee "laid off" in her area even though there were five employees who had less experience in that position than she did. None of those employees was pregnant. Thus, the company retained employees in the same or similar positions with less qualifications who were not in the protected class. The Defendant's proferred reason for termination was a pretext for discriminatory purpose. 
 
 Like this Story? Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox. Privacy Policy Cancel Continue 
 
 A Dallas woman filed suit against Halliburton last week claiming she was fired after her supervisors learned she was pregnant. In court documents filed on December, 21, Lynda Darden alleges she was fired in the summer of 2009 when "she was sexually discriminated against and terminated as a result of her pregnancy." Per the court docs, which indicate Darden was hired in Colorado and then transferred to Texas:If you detect a hint of snark in that wording, you're picking up what Darden's attorney, Todd Kelly, is putting down: He's become high-profile in recent years for suing the energy contractor.The Houston-based attorney presently represents Jamie Leigh Jones , the woman who sued former Halliburton subsidiary KBR alleging that she was gang-raped in 2005 by one known and several unknown co-workers and locked in a shipping container to prevent her from reporting the crime. Her case caused Al Franken to sponsor a defense bill amendment stipulating that defense contractors can't force people not to sue them if they get raped on the job. Kelly also represents several other women with sexual assault and/or harassment cases against KBR and Halliburton.Kelly tells Unfair Park that Halliburton is a less-than-ideal place to work for women: "I don't believe that Halliburton treats its women as they should." He says Darden told her supervisors she was pregnant even though she "had already been told by co-workers that she would be fired if she reported her pregnancy." According to Kelly, that was the general office scuttlebutt:. In court documents, Darden says she first told her supervisor of her pregnancy in March 2009 and was told on June 3, 2009, that she was losing her job as part of a general lay-off, but Darden says she was the only person let go at the time:For a brief time, Kelly says Unfair Park, his client's job was even advertised on the Internet after she was laid off, though he says Halliburton "took it off pretty quickly." Darden is seeking damages for back pay and "front pay in lieu of reinstatement, which would not be feasible under the circumstances."Read Darden's complaint in full below.
– Does everybody's favorite energy contractor, Halliburton, hate procreation? A former Halliburton employee is suing the company for wrongful termination and sex discrimination because, in the words of her lawyer, "she apparently violated the company's policy against procreation." Halliburton said it fired the pregnant administrative associate as part of general lay-offs, but the canned worker points out no one else in her department was fired, including people with less experience. Additionally, soon after the firing Halliburton briefly posted a job listing online for her former position, reports the Dallas Observer. The woman's lawyer, Todd Kelly, has sued Halliburton several times in recent years, including over the gang-rape of a woman at former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, a defense contractor. "I don't believe that Halliburton treats its women as they should," Kelly said. The rape case led Minnesota Sen. Al Franken to sponsor a defense bill amendment stipulating that defense contractors can't bar lawsuits from employees for sex assault.