Jones v. Halliburton Co.
791 F. Supp. 2d 567
S.D. Tex.2011Background
- Jones worked in Houston for the KBR Defendants and signed an overseas employment agreement with OAS to work in Iraq under LOGCAP III.
- Her July 2005 assignment placed her in Camp Hope, Green Zone Baghdad, where she was alleged to have been raped by a coworker in her barracks.
- DOS and KBR personnel initially controlled the investigation; Jones was later evaluated at 86 CASH and an SAE kit was collected, then stored at a KBR facility.
- Jones reported the rape to KBR and later left Iraq; she filed an EEOC Charge in Oct. 2005 alleging sex discrimination and hostile environment, with amendments in Jan. 2006 leading to a determination that Title VII violations occurred.
- Jones brought multiple claims in her Fourth Amended Complaint, including negligence, negligent undertaking, sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, fraud in the inducement to enter contract/arbitration, assault and battery, and IIED; arbitration had previously been compelled for some claims but later withdrawn from arbitration.
- The court subsequently allowed the KBR Defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment and held that certain common law claims were barred or not barred under the DBA and TCHRA analysis, and addressed exhaustion for retaliation. Jacobson
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Defense Base Act preempt Jones's common-law claims? | Jones argues the DBA is not exclusive because her injuries did not arise out of or in the course of employment, under which common-law claims remain viable. | KBR contends the DBA is exclusive for covered injuries and preempts common-law liability. | DBA exclusivity does not apply; injuries not within scope of employment mean common-law claims survive. |
| Did Jones's injuries arise out of or in the course of employment under the DBA? | Jones contends her injuries do not arise from employment conditions creating a zone of danger. | KBR argues deployment to Iraq and housing created a zone of special danger linking injuries to employment. | Jones's injuries did not arise out of or in the course of employment; thus not within the DBA scope. |
| Are Jones's intentional torts barred by the DBA as 'accidental' injuries? | Jones argues some injuries could be non-accidental and thus not barred by DBA exclusivity. | KBR asserts many intentional or non-accidental harms are barred by the DBA. | Even if some injuries are non-accidental, the DBA does not bar these common-law claims since they are not within DBA scope. |
| Does prior OWCP/DBA proceedings preclude; is collateral estoppel applicable? | Jones argues OWCP determinations should bind or preclude this case. | KBR argues prior OWCP findings preclude litigation. | Stipulations in OWCP proceedings do not have issue-preclusion effect; receipt of DBA benefits does not bar this action. |
| Are Jones's state-law claims precluded by TCHRA preemption or Waffle House principles? | Jones seeks to pursue state-law remedies not subsumed by TCHRA-based claims. | KBR contends TCHRA precludes related common-law claims under Waffle House. | Some state-law claims (negligence, negligent undertaking, false imprisonment, etc.) are precluded by TCHRA; fraud claims not barred; IIED barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504 (1951) (zone of special danger expands scope of employment for workers' compensation)
- O'Keeffe v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 338 F.2d 319 (5th Cir.1964) (employment on remote bases creates zone of special danger linking injuries to employment)
- Gondeck v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 382 U.S. 25 (1965) (recognizes scope language related to overseas employment)
- Kalama Services, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 354 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir.2004) (recreational activities may create zone of danger; not all living conditions do)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (TCHRA precludes common-law claims rooted in the same harassment)
- City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. 2008) (TCHRA exclusive remedy for retaliation in public employment context; blocks other actions)
- Creditwatch, Inc. v. Jackson, 157 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. 2005) (IIED barred where statutory or common-law remedies exist for same injury)
- Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004) (IIED as gap-filler; barred where other remedies available)