Case Law On Trafficking Convictions And Labor Law Enforcement
1. United States v. Calimlim, 538 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2008)
Jurisdiction: United States Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit)
Facts:
The Calimlim family, medical doctors in Wisconsin, kept a Filipina woman as a domestic servant for nearly 19 years. She worked every day, was paid very little, and was told that if she left, she would be arrested or deported.
Issue:
Whether threats of deportation and abuse of immigration status can constitute “coercion” under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA).
Judgment:
The court held that psychological coercion and threats of deportation qualified as coercion under 18 U.S.C. §1589 (forced labor statute). The defendants’ conviction was upheld.
Significance:
This case clarified that physical restraint is not required for forced labor; manipulation of immigration status or fear can suffice. It strengthened labor law enforcement against domestic servitude and human trafficking within private households.
2. United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011)
Jurisdiction: United States Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit)
Facts:
A Peruvian woman was brought to California by a wealthy employer under false pretenses. Her passport was confiscated, she worked long hours without pay, and her movements were controlled.
Issue:
Whether the employer’s conduct constituted forced labor and document servitude under federal trafficking laws.
Judgment:
The Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction for forced labor and trafficking, finding that coercion through confiscation of documents and psychological pressure violated 18 U.S.C. §§1589 and 1592.
Significance:
Reinforced the understanding that withholding identification documents to control workers is a hallmark of trafficking and labor exploitation.
3. Chowdhury v. Worldtel Bangladesh Holding, Ltd., 746 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2014)
Jurisdiction: United States Court of Appeals (Second Circuit)
Facts:
A Bangladeshi national alleged he was forced to work under abusive conditions in Bangladesh by an American corporation. He sought damages in U.S. courts under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).
Issue:
Whether the TVPRA allowed a civil remedy for trafficking or forced labor committed abroad.
Judgment:
The court held that the TVPRA has limited extraterritorial reach, but that companies can still be liable if part of the conduct (like recruitment or management) occurs within U.S. jurisdiction.
Significance:
Extended accountability for corporations involved in international labor exploitation, emphasizing corporate due diligence obligations in global labor supply chains.
4. R v. Connors (2013) EWCA Crim 324
Jurisdiction: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Facts:
A group of Irish travelers held vulnerable men in servitude at a campsite in Bedfordshire, forcing them to work in poor conditions and live in squalor for little to no pay.
Issue:
Whether the offenders could be convicted of trafficking and forced labor under Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Judgment:
Convictions upheld. The court found that deception, coercion, and control over living conditions satisfied the test for holding another in slavery or servitude.
Significance:
One of the first major British cases applying modern slavery laws. It set precedent for interpreting “forced or compulsory labor” broadly, including psychological compulsion and economic dependence.
5. Attorney General v. Chopra (2015) 2 NZLR 302
Jurisdiction: New Zealand Court of Appeal
Facts:
Indian workers were recruited to New Zealand on false promises of good wages. Upon arrival, they were made to work excessive hours in restaurants, had passports confiscated, and were paid below minimum wage.
Issue:
Whether exploitation under New Zealand’s Immigration Act and Crimes Act amounted to human trafficking and labor law violations.
Judgment:
The court confirmed convictions for exploitation and trafficking. The recruiters’ control through debt bondage and immigration manipulation constituted trafficking in persons.
Significance:
Established that trafficking does not require cross-border movement; internal labor exploitation with coercive conditions can meet the definition.
6. People v. Cortez, 2012 NY Slip Op 22117 (Sup. Ct. Bronx County 2012)
Jurisdiction: New York Supreme Court (Criminal Term)
Facts:
Two women were brought from Mexico and forced to work in a nail salon, living in the basement, under threat of harm and deportation.
Issue:
Application of New York’s state-level human trafficking laws to labor exploitation cases.
Judgment:
Convictions for labor trafficking and coercion upheld. The court found that “psychological compulsion” and “abuse of power” sufficed to prove coercion even without physical violence.
Significance:
One of the first successful state prosecutions for labor trafficking under New York’s human trafficking statute, showing how local labor laws can complement federal enforcement.
7. Vishal Jeet v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 318
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The petitioner sought directions to curb trafficking of women and children for prostitution and forced labor.
Issue:
Whether state inaction violated fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 23 of the Indian Constitution (prohibition of trafficking and forced labor).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court directed all states to establish rehabilitation homes, special police squads, and preventive programs against human trafficking.
Significance:
A landmark case integrating labor rights, human dignity, and constitutional protections, emphasizing the duty of the state to actively prevent trafficking and forced labor.
8. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
A public interest litigation exposed bonded labor practices in stone quarries in Haryana.
Issue:
Whether bonded labor violates Articles 21 (right to life and dignity) and 23 (prohibition of forced labor).
Judgment:
The Court held that bonded labor is unconstitutional and directed the government to identify, release, and rehabilitate bonded laborers.
Significance:
Historic precedent linking labor exploitation and human rights, forming the foundation of India’s modern anti-trafficking and labor enforcement framework.
Conclusion
These cases collectively show:
Expansion of “coercion” to include psychological, financial, and immigration-related threats.
Corporate accountability for labor trafficking in supply chains.
Constitutional and human rights approaches to labor enforcement (especially in India).
Judicial recognition that trafficking and labor exploitation can occur without physical violence or international movement.
Together, they demonstrate the evolution of law from punishing overt slavery to addressing modern forms of forced labor and trafficking, ensuring that labor law enforcement aligns with human rights principles.
RELATED Blog
comments