Flomo v. Firestone Nat. Rubber Co., LLC
643 F.3d 1013
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- 23 Liberian children sue Firestone for allegedly hazardous child labor on its Liberian rubber plantation via the Alien Tort Statute.
- District court granted summary judgment for Firestone and others; plaintiffs appeal only against Firestone.
- The core issues concern whether a non-natural- person can be liable under ATS and whether plaintiffs’ evidence shows a customary international law violation.
- Court explains customary international law is a vague, indeterminate body formed by general state practice and opinio juris, with limits highlighted in Sosa.
- Court holds corporate liability under ATS is possible, but the scope is limited to violations directed or condoned at the corporate decisionmaking level.
- Court ultimately AFFIRMS the district court’s judgment by finding plaintiffs failed to prove a customary international law violation by Firestone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a corporation can be liable under ATS | Flomo argues corporations can be liable under ATS for customary international law violations. | Firestone contends only individuals can be liable and corporations lack the heartbeat to violate customary international law. | Corporations can be liable under ATS. |
| Whether there is a CSC norm prohibiting corporate violations of customary international law | Plaintiffs rely on conventions and customary norms to show corporate prohibition. | Firestone argues no clear, universal corporate norm against such conduct exists. | There is a potential norm, but evidence insufficient to establish a violation. |
| Whether Firestone’s treatment of child labor on the plantation violated customary international law | Three conventions (and ILO 182) show a violation through harsh quotas and child involvement. | Conditions were not proven to rise to a customary international-law violation; evidence too uncertain. | plaintiffs failed to present triable issue of a customary international-law violation. |
| Scope of corporate liability under ATS (directed, encouraged, or condoned at policymaking level) | Liability extends to acts directed or condoned by corporate decisionmakers. | Limitation to policymaking-level violations is appropriate and not broader. | Liability is circumscribed to acts directed or condoned at the policymaking level. |
| Extraterritoriality and exhaustion of remedies | ATS applies extraterritorially to wrongful acts abroad. | Extraterritorial and comity concerns require consideration of foreign remedies. | The court rejects mandatory exhaustion and endorses ATS extraterritorial reach; comity not fatal here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004) (limits ATS to customary international law norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory)
- The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1900) (customs and usages of civilized nations as source of law when no treaty exists)
- Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003) (describes the soft, indeterminate character of customary international law)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (discusses corporate liability and international-law norms in ATS context)
- Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009) (recognizes that evidence can show customary international law norms via treaties and practice)