abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

이 페이지는 한국어로 제공되지 않으며 English로 표시됩니다.

소송

24 3월 2002

저자:
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Slavery reparations lawsuit (re USA)

상태: CLOSED

소송을 제기한 날짜
2002년 3월 24일
알 수 없음
Workers
제소 위치: 미국
사건 위치: 미국
소송 유형: 국내

기업 페이지

CSX 미국
Fleet (part of Bank of America) 미국 금융 및 은행
J.P. Morgan (part of JPMorgan Chase) 미국 금융 및 은행
Aetna 미국 보험
Bank of America 미국 금융 및 은행
Lehman Brothers 미국 금융 및 은행

출처

Snapshot: In 2002, descendants of 19th century African-American slaves filed nine lawsuits seeking reparations from corporations. Plaintiffs allege the corporations have ties to the trans-Atlantic slave trade and were unjustly enriched from the labour of African-American slaves. The court held that these claims raised political questions and were therefore beyond the scope of the federal judiciary. 

Descendants of 19th-century African-American slaves filed nine lawsuits seeking reparations from corporations in various US federal courts during 2002.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant corporations (financial, railroad, tobacco, insurance, and textile companies), or their predecessors, had ties to the trans-Atlantic slave trade and were unjustly enriched from the labour of African-American slaves.  In October 2002, these lawsuits were consolidated into one class-action lawsuit.  In 2004, the court dismissed the claim but allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.  The plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint making claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, civil rights violations due to the denial of property rights and consumer fraud.  In July 2005, the court again dismissed these claims.  The opinion noted that these claims raised a “political question”, and therefore were beyond the scope of the federal judiciary.  In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not have proper standing to bring the lawsuit against the named defendants and that the plaintiffs’ claims were precluded by the statute of limitations.  In December 2006, the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ consumer fraud claims, while upholding the dismissal of the balance of the plaintiffs’ claims.  The court of appeals found that questions remained as to whether consumers were defrauded by the failure of the defendant companies to reveal their alleged collaboration with slavery.  In May 2007, the plaintiffs petitioned the US Supreme Court to hear their appeal of the 2006 court of appeals decision.  The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition in October 2007, declining to hear the case.

- “A Federal Court of Appeals Revives a Class Action Seeking Compensation for Slavery in America”, Anthony Sebok, Findlaw’s Writ, 19 Dec 2006
- “Most of slavery reparations suit thrown out”, Mike Robinson, Associated Press, 14 Dec 2006
- “Slave descendants attempt to revive reparations lawsuit against 17 insurers and banks”, Associated Press, 27 Sep 2006
- “The Lawsuit Brought by African-Americans Seeking Compensation from Corporations for The Wrongs of Slavery: Why the Opinion Dismissing the Suit Is Unpersuasive”, Anthony Sebok, Findlaw’s Writ, 8 Aug 2005
- “Slave reparations case dismissed”, Associated Press, 26 Jan 2004
- “Federal Lawsuit Seeks Slave Reparations from Three Companies”, William Baue, Social Funds, 18 Apr 2002

- National Legal and Policy Center: [PDF] The Case Against Slave Reparations, Peter Flaherty & John Carlisle, 25 Oct 2004
- CSX: Statement in Response to Demands for Financial Reparations, 16 Aug 2002
- Aetna: Statement Regarding Slavery Reparations Lawsuit, 27 Mar 2002

- Plaintiffs’ press release: “Slave Descendant Takes Reparations Case to the United States Supreme Court”, 23 May 2007
- [PDF] Corporate Restitution for Slavery: Plaintiff and Defendant Information, Deadria C. Farmer-Paellmann [plaintiff]

US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit: In re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation:

Decision reversing the lower court’s dismissal in part and affirming the dismissal in part, 13 Dec 2006 
- briefs by plaintiffs & defendants are here
- MP3 audio of oral argument is here

US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:

In re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation, 6 Jul 2005 [opinion dismissing plaintiffs’ claims]
- [PDF] In re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation - Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss, 18 Jul 2003
- [PDF] Farmer-Paellmann v. FleetBoston et al. - First Consolidated and Amended Complaint and Jury Demand, 16 Jun 2003

US District Court for the Eastern District of New York

- [PDF] Farmer-Paellmann v. FleetBoston et al. - Complaint, 26 Mar 2002

타임라인

개인정보

이 웹사이트는 쿠키 및 기타 웹 저장 기술을 사용합니다. 아래에서 개인정보보호 옵션을 설정할 수 있습니다. 변경 사항은 즉시 적용됩니다.

웹 저장소 사용에 대한 자세한 내용은 다음을 참조하세요 데이터 사용 및 쿠키 정책

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

분석 쿠키

ON
OFF

귀하가 우리 웹사이트를 방문하면 Google Analytics를 사용하여 귀하의 방문 정보를 수집합니다. 이 쿠키를 수락하면 저희가 귀하의 방문에 대한 자세한 내용을 이해하고, 정보 표시 방법을 개선할 수 있습니다. 모든 분석 정보는 익명이 보장되며 귀하를 식별하는데 사용하지 않습니다. Google은 모든 브라우저에 대해 Google Analytics 선택 해제 추가 기능을 제공합니다.

프로모션 쿠키

ON
OFF

우리는 소셜미디어와 검색 엔진을 포함한 제3자 플랫폼을 통해 기업과 인권에 대한 뉴스와 업데이트를 제공합니다. 이 쿠키는 이러한 프로모션의 성과를 이해하는데 도움이 됩니다.

이 사이트에 대한 개인정보 공개 범위 선택

이 사이트는 필요한 핵심 기능 이상으로 귀하의 경험을 향상시키기 위해 쿠키 및 기타 웹 저장 기술을 사용합니다.