Another Day in Court for Forever 21
There will be another round in the Castro v. Forever 21 case.
On March 9, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a suit filed by 19 garment workers against Los Angeles–based Forever 21, a juniors retailer with 145 stores. The decision allows the workers another day in court.
However, the parties involved disagree about what the decision means for the case’s larger question: Are retailers responsible for the working conditions of the garment workers making the apparel they sell?
Christina Chung, a staff attorney with the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of California (APALC) who represented the workers, believes the decision is a wake-up call.
“When the district court dismissed the lawsuit in 2001, Forever 21 heralded it as a victory,” Chung said. “The 9th Circuit said the workers can have their day in court. That’s why retailers will pay attention to this case—because workers have the opportunity to pursue retailer liability. I think they’re worried about it.”
Wayne S. Flick, the attorney representing Forever 21, said this case will have no impact on the garment industry.
“The APALC’s take on the 9th Circuit’s decision is frankly rather silly,” said Flick, who works in the Los Angeles offices of law firm Latham and Watkins LLP. “The sole basis, and thus the sole import of the decision, is that the 19 garment workers’ alleged claims should be decided by a California court, not a federal court. We are confident the end result in state court will be just as it was in the district court.”
On Sept. 6, 2001, 19 garment workers who worked for six different Los Angeles contractors filed a lawsuit against Forever 21, alleging the company had violated state wage and hour laws and engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices under state law. Judge Manuel Real dismissed the case in March 2002.
In 2000, the California Legislature passed AB633, which states that retailers can be held liable for the conditions of sweatshop workers. Chung said the workers chose not to pursue administrative wage claims under AB633, which are adjudicated by the state labor commissioner. Instead, the workers chose to file suit, seeking retailer accountability under the state wage and hour laws that were amended as part of AB633, as well as through the state business and professions codes. Under the codes, a judge could require Forever 21 to change its business practices.
Chung said she estimated the case will be filed in California Superior Court between April and June.
Ilse Metchek, executive director of the California Fashion Association, closely watches the Forever 21 case and similar litigation. She said retailers can resolve issues of employer liability by paying scrupulous attention to every contract.
“These cases force people to be very clear on their contracts,” Metchek said. “If everything is in place, if all contract questions are answered, then the retailer doesn’t have to worry about anything.” —Andrew Asch
