Flomo v. Firestone Nat. Rubber Co., LLC
643 F.3d 1013, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14179, 17 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1612 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a corporation may be held civilly liable under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of customary international law, a claim will only succeed if the alleged conduct violates a norm of international law that is specific, universal, and obligatory, a standard which vague prohibitions on hazardous child labor do not meet.
Facts:
- Firestone Natural Rubber Company operates a 118,000-acre rubber plantation in Liberia, employing local agricultural workers as 'tappers'.
- Firestone set high daily production quotas for its tappers.
- Tappers who failed to meet their daily quotas risked losing their jobs, which were well-paid by Liberian standards.
- To meet the quotas, some tapper employees enlisted their own children as unpaid helpers.
- The plaintiffs, 23 Liberian children aged six to sixteen, performed work that included cutting tree bark with machetes, carrying heavy buckets of latex, and applying chemicals.
- Prior to 2005, there was evidence that Firestone's decision-makers were aware of, and may have condoned, some child labor on the plantation.
Procedural Posture:
- Twenty-three Liberian children sued Firestone Natural Rubber Company and its affiliates in a U.S. district court under the Alien Tort Statute.
- The case was transferred from a district court in California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Firestone Natural Rubber Company to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Alien Tort Statute permit a finding of civil liability against a corporation for indirectly causing hazardous child labor through the imposition of high production quotas on its employees, where such labor conditions have not been shown to violate a specific, universal, and obligatory norm of customary international law?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No. Although a corporation is not immune from liability under the Alien Tort Statute, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the labor conditions on the plantation violated a sufficiently defined norm of customary international law. First, the court holds that corporations can be held liable under the ATS. The historical absence of corporate prosecutions for international law violations is not dispositive; civil liability is a permissible domestic remedy for a breach of a substantive international norm. The court reasons that if corporations can be held criminally liable for domestic crimes, there is no logical barrier to holding them civilly liable for violating fundamental international laws like prohibitions on war crimes or piracy. Second, the court finds that the plaintiffs did not meet the high standard for proving a violation of customary international law established in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. The international conventions cited by the plaintiffs regarding child labor are too vague and aspirational to constitute a 'specific, universal, and obligatory' norm comparable to the 18th-century paradigms of piracy or mistreatment of ambassadors. The court concludes that the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate evidentiary basis to infer a violation of a cognizable international law norm, particularly given the caution mandated by the Supreme Court in this area.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the two-part inquiry for Alien Tort Statute claims against corporate defendants. First, it firmly establishes in the Seventh Circuit that corporations are not immune from ATS liability, contributing to a then-existing circuit split and keeping a legal avenue open for human rights litigation against multinational corporations. Second, it reinforces the stringent standard set by the Supreme Court in Sosa, making it difficult for plaintiffs to succeed without demonstrating that the corporation's conduct violated an international norm with the same level of universal condemnation and specificity as piracy or genocide. The ruling signals that courts will be hesitant to recognize new, less-defined international law norms, especially in complex socio-economic contexts like child labor, thus limiting the practical reach of the ATS.
