Domestic, United States of America Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, United States of America Gisela Sin Gomiz

Boimah FLOMO, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. FIRESTONE NATURAL RUBBER CO., LLC, Defendant–Appellee, No. 10–3675 - United States of America

Background

The applicants, a group of Liberian children, sued Firestone National Rubber Company (the Defendant) under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. They alleged use of hazardous child labour in a rubber plantation which the defendant was operating in Liberia in violation of customary international law. The district court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant. The applicants appealed the judgment. Green Advocates, a Liberian non-profit organisation, acted as local liaison in Liberia during the handling of this case.

Reasoning

The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that it was immune from liability under the Alien Tort Statute because it was a limited liability company. The Court considered relevant precedent, which held to the contrary, and noted that the failure to prosecute corporations for violations of customary international law in the past did not mean there was no norm forbidding them to commit such violations. The Court also highlighted the deterrent value of corporate liability, since it raises the expected costs of misconduct. However, the Court acknowledged the scope of corporate liability should be limited to cases in which violations are directed, encouraged or condoned at the corporate defendant’s decision-making level.

However, the Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, as it found that the applicants failed to furnish concrete evidence of the customs and practices of States to show that States have a legal obligation to impose liability on employers of child labour. In particular, the Court stated that the three primary international conventions cited by the applicants as evidence of an international norm against child labour were vague and/or did not give rise to enforceable obligations. Additionally, the court noted that the working conditions at the Firestone plantation “while bad, were not that bad”, and that the applicants hadn’t presented “evidence that would create a triable issue of whether they [were] that bad”.

Remedy

The Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The Court found that a corporation can be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute. However, applicants failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of whether defendant violated customary international law.

Role of children

The applicants in this case were a group of 23 Liberian children working in the Firestone’s rubber plantation, who filed a suit with the assistance of their adult legal guardians. The ages of the children ranged from 5 to 18.

Enforcement and other outcomes

The case made a significant difference to Firestone's plantation workers. Shortly after it was filed, and due extensive media coverage, Firestone took steps to reduce child labour on the plantation and to improve schools in the area. The workers formed an independent union, the Firestone Agricultural Workers Union of Liberia (“FAWUL”), to negotiate a new contract with the company. In the following years, the conditions of these workers generally improved.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

This case established that corporations can be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of customary international law, including laws pertaining to children’s rights, and offered insights on what makes a child labour claim viable under the Alien Tort Statute. This outcome has several potential benefits for future CRSL in this area, including notably that future plaintiffs will not have the burden of responding to the defence that corporation are immune from liability under this statute.

Additionally, this is the first case in which an applicant’s claims satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of the Alien Tort Statute (See Bergman, 2011). The district court rejected the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that its jurisdiction to hear the case stemmed from the fact that the applicants alleged an arguable violation of the law of nations and did not depend on whether the Alien Tort Statute created a private cause of action for violations of children’s rights. This was important because it means that it should be sufficient that future CRSL plaintiffs are able to allege an arguable violation of the law of nations for the courts to have the competence to hear a case.

Country

United States of America

Forum and date of decision

United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

July 11, 2011

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

The applicants:

Terrence P. Collingsworth and Christian Levesque, Attorney, Conrad Scherer, LLP, Washington, DC.

Paul Hoffman, Attorney, Schon-burn Desimone Seplow Harris Hoffman Harrison, LLP, Venice, CA.

The defendants:

Brian J. Murray (argued), Attorney, Jones Day, Chicago, IL.

List of amicus curiae:

Case documents

Amicus curiae briefs:

Secondary documents

Bergman, Jessica (2011) “The Alien Tort Statute and Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Company: The Key to Change in Global Child Labor Practices?”, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 18.

IndustriAll Global Union, “Liberian Unions Demand Better Working Conditions at Firestone Rubber Plantations” (IndustriALL August 23, 2018), accessed October 31, 2022

 Metlitsky, Anton (2013) “The Alien Tort Statute, Separation of Powers, and the Limits of Federal-Common-Law Causes of Action,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law: Vol. 52: Iss. 53.

Lowe A, (2013) “Customary International Law and International Human Rights Law: A Proposal for The Expansion of the Alien Tort Statute,” Vol. 23: Iss. 3.

International Rights Advocates, “Flomo, Et Al. v. Firestone Natural Rubber Company” (IRAadvocates), accessed October 26, 2022

Read More