- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
by Lee Siu Hin
Friday, Mar. 08, 2002 at 7:50 PM
My friends and anti-sweatshop allys from Los Angeles Garment Worker's Center and Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHRILA) are in danger!!
At the recent legal setback against the netrious Forever 21 retail sweatshop at the LA court, now they are launching counter-suit against the activists!!!
errorIt's not just the slap against the activists, but also the arrogance of the mulitinatitional corporsaion and sweatshop owners to respect workers and pay livingable wages. with the recent legal 'victory', Forever 21 will be more esay to supress workers and their wages!
Please write, call, FAX your protest letter to Forever 21 Corporation, and their corporate lawer Robin D. Dal Soglio of Latham & Watkins, ask them:
1) stop the legal attacks to the activists, and
2) sit down with actrivists, workers for a meanful dialogue.
Do Won Chang - President
Jin Sook Chang - Secretary, CFO, Head Buyer, and wife of Do Won Chang
2001 S. Alameda St.
Los Angeles, CA 90058
Phone: 213-747-2121 Fax: 213-741-5161
Attony Robin D. Dal Soglio
[Lawyer represent Forever 21]
Latham & Watkins
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
Tel: (231)485-1234 Contact: Scott P. Klein
**Background information on Forever 21 (By sweatshop Watch)
Lee Siu Hin
Action for World Liberation Everyday!
Forever 21 Files Defamation Suit Against Groups
Retail: Owners say they were unfairly targeted, two days after a judge rejects labor claims.
By NANCY CLEELAND
TIMES STAFF WRITER
March 7 2002
Hip clothing retailer Forever 21 filed a defamation lawsuit against several anti-sweatshop groups Wednesday, claiming they unfairly targeted the label in a "vicious" public campaign.
The suit came two days after U.S. District Court Judge Manuel Real dismissed a claim for back pay and damages filed on behalf of 19 workers, who said they sewed Forever 21 clothing at various Los Angeles factories. The retailer argued in its motion for dismissal that it had no control over wages and conditions because the workers were employed by subcontractors. Attorneys for the workers said they would appeal.
Based largely on the workers' claims, made public last September, several advocacy groups in Los Angeles took on Forever 21 as a symbol of problems in the garment industry. The workers said they routinely were paid less than the minimum wage and denied overtime premiums, and had to work in filthy factories infested with rats and cockroaches. Although not addressing the complaints, Forever 21 owners Do Won and Jin Sook Chang said they did not employ the workers. They said they buy clothing through vendors and contractors, and were removed from the workers.
"The fact is that Forever 21 was in no position to have any impact on their working conditions," said attorney Robin D. Dal Soglio of Latham & Watkins. "Its owners are truly decent, good people, very philanthropic, involved in their church ... To have them be associated with sweatshop conditions is just so upsetting." Dal Soglio said the owners are seeking a public apology and an injunction to stop further activity.
Groups named in the defamation suit include the Garment Worker Center and the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. Both have organized pickets outside Forever 21 stores and the owners' Beverly Hills home, and maintained Web sites outlining worker complaints.
Kimi Lee, director of the worker center, said Forever 21 was targeted because of a high number of complaints associated with the label. "We got so many workers from different factories in a short period of time. In four to five months, about 20 workers came to us from six different factories," Lee said.
She said the use of contractors and subcontractors is common in the garment industry, and that brand-name manufacturers and retailers are taking steps to monitor working conditions in factories.
Retailers such as Forever 21 "exert substantial control over the economic relationships and employment conditions in the garment industry," Lee said. "They could have ensured that the factories where their labels were being sewed into clothing were in compliance with labor laws."
A Forever 21 vendor, also named in the original complaint, settled with the workers, providing some back wages and agreeing to undergo training in labor laws.
The public campaign severely impacted Forever 21's image and hurt sales during the crucial holiday season, Dal Soglio said. She said the dismissal shows Forever 21's owners were right. "We've now been vindicated," Dal Soglio said. "It's time to clear our name."
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Report this post as:
LATEST COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
Listed below are the 10 latest comments of 1 posted about this article.
These comments are anonymously submitted by the website visitors.