Bridgestone-Firestone
Case Name: JOHN ROE I et al v. BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION, BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDING, INC., BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN TIRE, LLC, FIRESTONE NATURAL RUBBER COMPANY, FIRESTONE PLANTATION CO., BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE CORPORATE DOES 1-10, DANIEL J. ADOMITIS, CHARLES STUART, and INDIVIDUAL BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE DOES 11-20
Plaintiffs: children who work and live on the Firestone plantation in Liberia.
Summary: A lawsuit was filed in November 2005 on behalf of adults and children who work and live on the Firestone Plantation in Liberia. The suit charges that Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC and several affiliated companies forced workers to meet impossible quotas and benefited from the widespread use of unlawful child labor. In conjunction with the lawsuit, we have joined forces with the Institute for Policy Studies, Friends of the Earth, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and other US-based organizations to demand that Bridgestone-Firestone to take responsibility for their actions and follow the law accordingly. The company argued in court that poverty and terrible conditions excuse any resulting human rights violations, however this large multinational will not be able to plead the poverty of its workers to justify child and forced labor. On June 26, 2007, in a truly groundbreaking decision, the judge denied Firestone's motion to dismiss and allowed this case to move forward to trial on child labor claims. This ruling represents the first-ever decision allowing a claim for child labor under the Alien Tort Statute.
Media: Below are streaming video footage of the Firestone plantation. You will need a video player to view the video files.
Firestone Conditions
| Launch in external player |
Firestone Labor
| Launch in external player |
Need a video player? Download Windows Media Player.
Status:
Child plaintiffs’ (unredacted) declarations for James Roe 1-15 and Jane Roe 1-8 are filed in January 2008 in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification with the Court filed in December 2007
Judge gives Order to move forward on child labor claims, rejecting Firestone's dismissal motion! June 26, 2007
August 2006: Response to Firestone [IRA Supplemental Brief]
August 2006: Firestone questions the definition of forced labor [Firestone Supplemental Brief]
April 6, 2006 Update: The Central District of California granted Firestone's request to transfer the case to Indianapolis, Indiana. Firestone requested the transfer because it claims a trial in California would be inconvenient for its employees in Indiana and Tennessee who will have to testify as to their role in the forced labor of the tappers on the Firestone plantation in Liberia. Unfortunately, the Court agreed to Firestone's request ruling that, even though Firestone imports, sells and distributes their forced labor produced rubber in California, California, Firestone does not have a "significant connection to the activities alleged in the complaint," and that Indiana, which is home to two of the corporate defendants, has a stronger connection to the case. The ruling by the California court does not affect the substance of the workers' forced labor claims. However, as a result of the transfer, the workers will now have to face Firestone in its home court in Indiana.
Apr 2006: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Mar 2006: Firestone's Motion to Dismiss
Nov 2005: Complaint against Bridgestone Firestone
Cooperating Attorneys:
Paul L. Hoffman
Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman LLP
Barry Macey
Kimberly Jeselskis
MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN
Mark Sayre
Hugh Totten
Virginia Kim
VALOREM LAW GROUP
— Chris Saeger, "Strengthening Rule of Law Through Aid for Human Rights Litigation in National Courts: A Case Study of Oil Multinational Corporations Complicit in Human Rights Violations in Sudan and Nigeria (December 2007)
— Terry Collingsworth, "Using the Alien Tort Claims Act to Introduce the Rule of Law to the Global Economy (2005)
International Rights Advocates is a nonprofit dedicated to holding corporations accountable for human rights violations in countries around the world. IRAdvocates already has 14 pending cases but without your support, IRAdvocates will not be able to continue its litigation.