Secrecy and justice in the ongoing saga of DBCP litigation.

Since the 1980s, banana workers from Central America and elsewhere have filed cases in the United States for sterility damages caused by exposure to the nematicide dibromochloropropane (DBCP) used during the 1960s and 1970s. These plaintiffs' efforts at holding fruit and chemical corporations accountable have been met with numerous obstacles. Many cases have been dismissed on the grounds that they would "more conveniently" be tried elsewhere, despite the fact that significant barriers exist to bringing such cases in many of these workers' home countries. Using this strategy, defendants including Dole Food, Chiquita, Dow and Shell Chemical have been mostly successful in avoiding any penalty for their part in exposing banana workers to DBCP without adequate protection or information. In fact, although a few cases have settled, the first DBCP case did not reach the trial stage until 2007. In that case, the damages awarded to the six Nicaraguan banana workers were $5 million, an amount later reduced to $2·3 million. In 2010, Dole successfully sought to dismiss not only that case, but other cases brought by Nicaraguan plaintiffs. The company claimed that there was evidence of widespread fraud among Nicaraguan plaintiffs, attorneys, and judges, as well as lawyers based in the US. However, many of those accused of fraud did not have a chance to respond to those allegations or cross-examine their accusers. In addition, allegations of fraudulent behavior on the part defendants suggest that the story is more complicated. Instead of dismissing these cases--a defacto victory for the defendant--US courts should move forward with deciding these cases on their own merits; leaving juries to determine the veracity of plaintiffs and defendants' claims.