California Apparel News

Dismissing the notion that a retailer is the ultimate employer in the apparel supply chain, a Los Angeles federal court has rejected a case by 19 plaintiffs who sued Forever 21 for wage and labor violations.

The March 4 ruling by the district court judge disagreed with the allegation that the Los Angeles-based chain was the employer of those working at sewing facilities contracted out by apparel manufacturers who sell to Forever 21.

“Obviously, the company is thrilled,” said Robin D. Dal Soglio, an attorney with Latham & Watkins, which represented the defendants. “This confirms that we weren’t a garment manufacturer or the employer of the plaintiffs. To have a court vindicate this is terrific.”

Forever 21, along with six contractors, was the object of a suit filed last September by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center on behalf of garment workers who alleged that they worked six days a week for less than minimum wage and suffered from needle punctures, shoulder pain and other injuries and ailments.

The subject of myriad protests and boycotts held at area stores and even at the Beverly Hills home of the company founders, the husband-and-wife team of Do Won and Jin Sook Chang, Forever 21 has also filed a civil lawsuit against the plaintiffs, the Garment Worker Center, Sweatshop Watch, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, and other individuals, seeking unspecified damages for defamation and injury to its business.

As a result of the verbal attacks, the stores have lost sales and employees have suffered in morale, according to Christopher Lee, the assistant to Chang.

“We’ve even received death threats. They call, but never leave a return phone number,” he said. “They don’t even give us a chance to call back and explain our position.”

Kimi Lee, director of the Garment Worker Center, who hasn’t seen the filing yet, says Forever 21 is trying “to squash free speech.”

“It’s unfortunate they’re doing this,” Lee said. “We’re a nonprofit organization trying to help these workers. They’re paying attorneys’ fees versus paying the salaries of garment workers.”

But Forever 21 counters that it’s simply trying to set the record straight regarding its work ethic and philosophy.

“We want injunctive relief to stop these people from saying things that aren’t truthful,” Dal Soglio said. “This isn’t about money. Obviously, these people don’t have much money. It’s clearing the company name.”

Plaintiffs, however, say the battle against Forever 21 will continue.

“It’s definitely a disappointment,” said Julie Su, an attorney with the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. “But the case isn’t over. We will exercise our right to appeal the case. We believe the court’s decision is in error.”

She said one of the challenges of the case was locating the contractors, a number of whom have closed their doors or simply vanished, including Nare Fashion. Another contractor, PNL, declared bankruptcy.

Still, Su said the suit was able to generate results, noting that Sany Fashion, one of the contractors named in the suit, paid one worker $6,000.

In addition, Los Angeles-based One Clothing, which manufactures clothing for Forever 21, has agreed to pay an estimated $175,000 for unfair labor practices at its sewing facility, Primula. As part of its settlement, One Clothing, a unit of O&K Clothing, also signed a consent decree that requires the apparel manufacturer to implement programs to stem the tide of labor violations. Measures include establishing a toll-free hotline for workers to report labor abuses and providing annual labor law training for its contractors.

Su said a press conference will be held March 12 at 10:30 a.m. at the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.