abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeblueskyburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfilterflaggenderglobeglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptriangletwitteruniversalitywebwhatsappxIcons / Social / YouTube
Lawsuit (SLAPP)

Sherpa

Status: ONGOING

Date lawsuit was filed
15 Apr 2015
Date accuracy
All Correct
Sherpa
Civil, Criminal
Not applicable
Human rights group
Lawsuits: SLAPPs
Legal claims: Defamation, Violation of the presumption of innocence
Amount of damages: $730,469
Amount of damages (local currency): 608,000 Euros
Lawsuit Brought By: Company
Target: Group, Organisation or Institution
Location of Filing: France
Location of Incident: France
Vinci France Construction Company Response

Sources

Sherpa, a French non-profit organization, is fighting for corporate accountability. In March 2015, Sherpa filed a complaint for alleged forced labor against VINCI entities, including Vinci Construction Grands Projets, a subsidiary of VINCI S.A., in their building activities in view of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. In response to public statements about their complaint, VINCI filed defamation lawsuits in April 2015 at the Paris regional court against Sherpa as well as against individual Sherpa employees. In October 2018, following a campaign against SLAPPs that Sherpa helped set up (OnNeSeTairaPas), VINCI changed its defamation lawsuit and demanded one symbolic Euro from Sherpa rather than the hundreds of thousands of Euros originally asked for. VINCI also filed another lawsuit against Sherpa based on the violation of the presumption of innocence, but the Parisian court dismissed this suit in 2016. We invited the company to respond; it did. A rejoinder from the organization is available here.