DC Court Drops Case Alleging Kimberly-Clark Benefited From Forced Labor
A federal court in the District of Columbia last week dismissed a suit against U.S. personal care product giant Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Ansell Healthcare Products, which alleged that the companies knowingly benefited from taking part in a venture that engaged in forced labor. Judge Carl Michols held that Kimberly-Clark and Ansell didn't take part in a venture and didn't have the "requisite knowledge" to establish liability under the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act (Mohammed Forhad Mia, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark, et al., D.D.C. # 1:22-02353).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The court also said that the "alleged labor abuses" happened "entirely abroad," making the claims against the companies "impermissibly extraterritorial." There were no claims that the company "committed any affirmative financial wrongdoing," the decision said.
The suit was brought by 13 laborers who were allegedly trafficked from Bangladesh and Malaysia and forced to work in a Malaysian glove factory that sold its goods to Kimberly-Clark. The factory, Brightway, was subject to a withhold release order from CBP in 2021, which banned the import of products made at the factory. Kimberly-Clark said after the imposition of the WRO, it stopped importing goods under the WRO.
Filing a claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act, the 13 laborers had to prove that Kimberly-Clark knowingly benefited from "participation in a venture" that violated "federal slavery and human trafficking laws."
Here, the laborers haven't pointed to anything "more" that "suffices to transform defendants' contracts with Brightway into a venture," the court said. While the laborers allege that Kimberly-Clark's "substantial business agreements with Brightway" gave them "significant financial leverage over" the factory such that they had enough control to require changes to its labor practices, the court wasn't sold, finding that the examples of "control" that were offered are "nothing more than the 'right to stop purchasing' that Apple expressly held" and didn't give buyers control over their suppliers.
As for Kimberly-Clark's knowledge of the forced labor, the court said the individuals didn't plead sufficient facts to show that the company had the "requisite knowledge here." The court said the allegations only state a general knowledge of the forced labor, but even if the company was aware that other Malaysian glove makers had been accused of labor abuses, "that says nothing about what they knew or should have known about Brightway or BioPro in particular -- which is the only pertinent inquiry."