.png)
Firefighters are sounding the alarm on a hidden danger lurking in their protective gear: PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals. Often referred to as "forever chemicals" due to their persistence in the environment, PFAS are linked to severe health risks, including cancer and immune system damage, and despite the well-documented dangers, these chemicals are used widely by manufacturers. Companies have a responsibility to prioritize safety over profits, and attorneys play a vital role in enforcing that accountability.
The case against 3M, DuPont, and Honeywell
In June 2024, a group of firefighters in Connecticut filed a class action lawsuit in New Haven against 3M, DuPont, Honeywell, and 16 other defendants, alleging that their protective gear is contaminated with harmful PFAS chemicals. The plaintiffs argue that the presence of PFAS in their jackets and pants, which is absorbed more readily into the skin with increased heat and sweat, poses serious health risks. They claim these chemicals are causing “subclinical cellular changes” in their bodies, making them more susceptible to adverse health effects. According to Reuters, DuPont denied ever manufacturing the specific PFAS chemicals cited, 3M stated it would defend itself in court or consider settlement, and Honeywell did not issue a response to the allegations.
The shift in focus from drinking water to everyday products
Much of the PFAS litigation to date has centered around the contamination of public drinking water, with major chemical companies like 3M and DuPont facing lawsuits from water treatment facilities and individuals suffering from related health issues. However, a new front in the battle against these harmful substances is emerging. As evidence mounts that PFAS chemicals are present in a wide array of consumer and commercial products, including firefighter gear, we are likely witnessing just the beginning of a surge in litigation.
Firefighter gear, essential for the protection of those who risk their lives daily, is now under scrutiny due to the presence of PFAS. This represents a significant shift in focus from the ingestion-related health impacts that have been well-documented, to concerns about how these chemicals, when present in everyday products, could affect human health. Although the science is still developing, particularly in understanding how PFAS is absorbed through skin contact or other non-ingestion pathways, the public's growing concern cannot be ignored.
To date, many companies have been less than forthcoming about the presence and levels of PFAS in their products. This lack of transparency has extended even to brands that market themselves as environmentally friendly, leading to increased consumer frustration and calls for accountability. With the public becoming more health and environmentally conscious, companies that fail to disclose or address the presence of PFAS in their products could soon find themselves facing a wave of litigation.
This growing awareness and concern among consumers suggests that lawsuits related to PFAS contamination in products like firefighter gear are only beginning. As more evidence emerges, and as consumers demand greater transparency and safety, manufacturers and companies producing these products will likely face increased scrutiny and legal challenges.
The Connecticut case is expanding the PFAS legal landscape
A new wave of litigation is unfolding as firefighters bring a class action lawsuit concerning the presence of PFAS in their protective gear. The case could represent a significant development in the broader context of lawsuits involving PFAS in apparel, as it centers on the chemicals' ability to infiltrate the human body through clothing. The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of this firefighting gear misrepresented the safety of their products and failed to warn about the serious health risks associated with PFAS exposure.
This case has the potential to shape the legal landscape for future claims involving PFAS. If successful, it could set a precedent for holding manufacturers accountable for failing to disclose the dangers of these chemicals in everyday products. The stakes are particularly high here because firefighting gear is specifically designed for extreme conditions, where factors like sweat and inhalation can increase the likelihood of PFAS absorption into the body.
The scientific case underpinning this lawsuit will be closely watched. Research has shown that PFAS can migrate from turnout gear to the skin, raising important concerns about cancer risks for firefighters. While the claims currently hinge on the increased risk of harm rather than a definitive causal link between PFAS exposure and specific illnesses, the scientific community is expected to devote much more attention to these issues moving forward. This case could mark a pivotal moment in understanding and addressing the long-term health impacts of PFAS on those who are exposed to them through gear used in the line of duty, or even in apparel and other products used by consumers in everyday life.
A turning point in PFAS litigation
The lawsuit over PFAS in firefighter gear could amount to a new direction in the trajectory of PFAS litigation. No longer confined to water contamination, the expanding scope of these cases highlights the widespread impact of PFAS across various industries. This particular case not only emphasizes the potential dangers faced by first responders but also sets the stage for broader legal challenges against manufacturers of PFAS-containing products. As the legal landscape evolves, this case could significantly influence future litigation, regulatory actions, and ultimately, the responsibility of corporations to safeguard public health and safety.
Join top attorneys already working with Darrow. Contact us.
_________________________
This Might Interest You:
Partner with Darrow to grow your practice
