Nestle USA vs Doe I A Business Law Case

Business Law Case: Nestle USA vs. Doe I

Child slavery has been under serious debate for the past few centuries as it has been claimed as unethical and illegal by various countries of the world. However, modern slavery persists, and the advancement in science and technology and increasing globalization have not been successful yet in eradicating this evil from society. The recent data from the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the International Organization of Migration (IOM) have revealed that over 40 million children are still the prey of modern slavery until 2016 (“40 Million in Modern Slavery”). This paper highlights a business case involving child slavery and labor conducted by business giants for their benefit. The final ruling of the case would be stated along with case facts and analysis.

Background

Nestle and Cargill had made contracts with the field owners of the cocoa plantations but were not the owners themselves. The child slaves, Doe et al., were the child slaves in those fields. The case filers believed that these companies aided and abetted child slavery under Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Alien Tort Statute is the right that the United States Code provides to the federal court to present their jurisdiction over the case filed for the law violation of the foreign nationals (“The Alien Tort Statute”). This code was established to nurture foreign relations between the countries so that international law could be followed harmoniously. Also, if such an act is carried out in the absence of such provision, the law should be responsible for taking immediate actions for holding the concerned parties accountable.

On Ivory Coast, the cocoa plantations did exist, and they used children for working on these farms. The children used to work for fourteen hours, six days a week, and that too, without being paid. In addition to that, children who tried to escape were tormented and beaten. Despite having an awareness of these Acts, Ivory Cost continued producing cocoa by contributing to more than 70% of the world’s cocoa’s resources (Pagan-Figueroa and Skene).

Nestle and Cargill are considered the two primary source providers and made a deal with the Ivory Coast in exchange for the cheap labor for abundant cocoa production. They believed that they must act on the ‘unilateral goal’ strategy of controlling the fields with this contract so that cheap cocoa production could be obtained long-term. Therefore, their buyer-seller relations depended on the financial support for these plantations in the form of tools for the farmers, investments for the training and maintenance of the fields. The visits were also made to the plantations by these giants, which were headquartered in the United States, continuing throughout the year.

It also noticed that authorities rescued 19 Malian child slaves from the Ivory Coast farms under child slavery (Pagan-Figueroa and Skene). Being completely aware of the laws and their violations regarding child labor, the business against continued to support child slavery for the personal benefit of cheap cocoa production. Nestle and Cargill kept practicing their business processes as they were, which could be petitioned against the legislation and could require the companies to authorize their products as “slave-free.”

The Case

In 2013, a case was filed in the Supreme Court against the business giants like Nestle USA and Cargill by the plaintiff/ respondents who were the formerly enslaved young workers. The three children told the court that they were kidnapped and enslaved by the Ivory Coast owners to pursue their child labor goals. The Ivory Coast owners were also considered the greatest propagators of child slavery. They kidnapped, enforced labor, and afflicted pain on the children to fulfill their labor demands. Doe et al. believed Nestle and Cargill supported child slavery and should be banished from this act under Alien Tort Statute as its violation was obvious.

The oral arguments started on Dec. 1, 2020, to assess whether the domestic corporations should be held answerable under ATS and should be scrutinized for aiding and abetting the human rights violations in the form of child labor and slavery. The court asked Doe et al. to polish their case by mentioning the specific acts conducted on these farms by those companies and whether the companies are from the US for following the ATS in the right and lawful manner.

The final ruling of the Supreme Court came as a dismissal of Doe’s case by deeming it as an illegal outsider application of the ATS. For this reason, the court believed Nestle and Cargill were only conducting their usual business with the Ivory Coast. The case was held in an 8-1 opinion determining that interdiction of slavery was universal (“Nestle USA Inc. v. Doe 1”).

Analysis

Nestle and Cargill both asserted that the harm caused by child slavery was outside the boundaries of the United States, which does not make these companies accountable under ATS. The Mali and Ivory Coast were the main regions where human rights violations were observed. There is no evidence of the domestic injuries witnessed within the country. Also, if the principal complaint from Doe et al. is examined, then aiding and abetting could not have injured the child slavery propositions of these children since slavery is the torture that these children underwent while working on these farms. Nestle and Cargill were not the chief operators of these farms; hence, they were relieved of the case charges.

It was assumed by Doe et al. that the corporations’ awareness of the human rights violations should also be punished. In contrast, Nestle and Cargill declared that they are conducting their business practices under the contract made with Ivory Coast fields. They did not deal with the plantations’ owners to kidnap and enslave the children for this purpose. Even Cargill proclaimed that if aiding and abetting are termed as the financial support to the Ivory Coast, there are several other violations in the actual meaning of enormous human rights.