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 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 worlds cocoas 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…