While I agree that litigation is misused and overused, the excerpt above, along with both of the following excerpts from a different article (link below) state that basically she signed away her right to seek civil damages. If we're relying on these articles to be accurate, then that is different from a requirement to first go to arbitration, and if not a satisfactory outcome, to litigation.
"Senator Al Franken pushed through an amendment on Tuesday that is designed to withhold defense contracts from companies like Halliburton if they prohibit their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.
After her safe return to the United States, she learned a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court, instead forcing her into an "arbitration" process that would be conducted by KBR itself."
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212260731.shtml
"... prevent victims of assault from going to court."No contract clause can prohibit you from filing charges for assault if you are the victim of assault. Such a clause would be illegal. Also, while contract clauses can limit your ability to sue your employer until you have first sought remedies via arbitration, such clauses cannot prohibit you from pursuing your further legal remedies once you have gone through the required arbitration process."they prohibit their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."
"a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court"