Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
643 F.3d 1013 (2011)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Twenty-three Liberian children (plaintiffs) sued Firestone Natural Rubber Co. (Firestone) in a federal district court, alleging that Firestone’s use of child labor on its rubber-harvesting plantation in Liberia was a violation of customary international law making Firestone liable under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Approximately 6,500 Firestone employees and their families lived on the plantation, which spanned 186 square miles. Firestone did not directly employ any children. Plaintiffs alleged, however, that the rigorous quotas imposed by Firestone induced plantation employees to use their children as aides and that Firestone officials were aware of, and even condoned, the practice. Plaintiffs did not supply facts documenting the number of children working on the plantation nor the extent or content of their labor. As a general matter, however, harvesting rubber was difficult, hazardous work. Firestone moved for summary judgment on the grounds that its corporate status immunized it from suit under the ATS and that, even if suit were permitted, plaintiffs could not show that Firestone had violated customary international law. The district court granted summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
