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

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

法律诉讼

24 三月 2002

作者:
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Slavery reparations lawsuit (re USA)

状态: CLOSED

提诉日期
2002年3月24日
未知
工人
申诉地点: 美国
事发地点: 美国
诉讼类型: Domestic

企业

CSX 美国
Fleet (part of Bank of America) 美国 金融和银行业
J.P. Morgan (part of JPMorgan Chase) 美国 金融和银行业
Aetna 美国 保险
Bank of America 美国 金融和银行业
Lehman Brothers 美国 金融和银行业

Sources

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

时间线

隐私资讯

本网站使用 cookie 和其他网络存储技术。您可以在下方设置您的隐私选项。您所作的更改将立即生效。

有关我们使用网络存储的更多信息,请参阅我们的 数据使用和 Cookie 政策

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.

分析 cookie

ON
OFF

您浏览本网页时我们将以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie将有助我们理解您的浏览资讯,并协助我们改善呈现资讯的方法。所有分析资讯都以匿名方式收集,我们并不能用相关资讯得到您的个人信息。谷歌在所有主要浏览器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加应用程式。

市场营销cookies

ON
OFF

我们从第三方网站获得企业责任资讯,当中包括社交媒体和搜寻引擎。这些cookie协助我们理解相关浏览数据。

您在此网站上的隐私选项

本网站使用cookie和其他网络存储技术来增强您在必要核心功能之外的体验。