Firefighter Lawsuits Over Turnout Gear Cancer Risks Consolidated in Minnesota

Order comes a year after the federal judge overseeing firefighting foam lawsuits recommended that the turnout gear claims be transferred to his court.

A panel of federal judges has ordered lawsuits over PFAS chemicals used in firefighter protective gear to be consolidated in Minnesota, as manufacturers face claims that they sold turnout gear containing toxic substances linked to cancer and other serious health risks.

For decades, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” have been used in firefighter turnout gear because they resist heat, water and oil. However, the chemicals do not naturally break down and can accumulate in the environment and human body over time, raising concerns about repeated exposure among firefighters who wear the gear during emergency responses, training exercises and other routine duties.

The lawsuits similarly allege that chemical manufacturers and companies involved in the production and sale of turnout gear knew or should have known about the potential risks associated with PFAS exposure, yet failed to adequately warn firefighters and others.

Several lawsuits have now been filed over the use of PFAS in turnout gear, including proposed class actions brought by municipalities and other purchasers of the equipment, as well as a separate proposed class action involving firefighters and firefighter associations.

In May, plaintiffs asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate the federal claims before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Turnout Gear Cancer Risks

In 2022, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association urged firefighters to reduce their PFAS exposure, and called on manufacturers to focus on developing alternatives that did not contain PFAS.

The groups warned that firefighters cannot fully eliminate PFAS cancer risks as long as the chemicals remain in protective gear and other firefighting equipment.

Following those warnings, firefighter turnout gear lawsuits began to raise claims that manufacturers failed to disclose the risks associated with PFAS-containing protective clothing and continued selling the products despite concerns about long-term exposure.

Firefighters have some of the highest cancer rates of any profession, and the lawsuits maintain that repeated contact with PFAS-containing turnout gear may contribute to that risk.

Firefighter Turnout Gear Lawsuits Consolidated

Following oral arguments earlier this summer, the JPML issued a transfer order (PDF) on August 18, establishing a new multidistrict litigation in the District of Minnesota before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan.

The proceeding has been titled In re: Non-AFFF Firefighter Turnout Gear Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, and will include federal claims involving PFAS in turnout gear that do not also involve exposure to aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF.

The judges noted that some parties opposed centralization because only a limited number of cases had been filed. However, the panel found that coordinated proceedings were still warranted because the claims involve overlapping factual and legal issues, including defendants’ knowledge about PFAS risks, product warnings, marketing practices and potential class certification questions.

“The opponents of centralization primarily argue that centralization is premature because there are relatively few actions pending, such that informal coordination is a practicable and preferable alternative to centralization. We disagree. Including the potential tag-along actions, there are now eight putative class actions by turnout gear purchasers in five districts, as well as a putative class action brought by firefighters and firefighter associations in the District of Connecticut.”

– U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

The five cases initially transferred into the Minnesota MDL include claims brought by governmental and fire-service purchasers from several states, including San Mateo County, the City of Peabody, the City of Rochester, Earlville Community Fire Protection District and the City and County of Butte-Silver Bow.

With the litigation now centralized, Judge Bryan will oversee coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings involving the common allegations. The structure is intended to reduce duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent rulings and make it easier for the parties to address overlapping issues involving PFAS-containing turnout gear.

AFFF Lawsuits

Some attorneys wished to transfer the lawsuits to an already existing MDL that focused on injury lawsuits over exposure to aqueous-film forming foam (AFFF), which is used at military bases, airports and by first responders who have to put out petroleum fires. AFFF also contains PFAS. The JPML rejected that idea, acknowledging that there was considerable overlap between the two litigations but did not feel that there was a significant enough benefit to merging the litigation.

All federal AFFF lawsuits have been consolidated in the District of South Carolina before U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel. In that litigation, chemical companies face tens of thousands of claims by individuals, firefighters, military personnel and others who say widespread use of PFAS has led to heavy water contamination.

Judge Gergel originally backed consolidating all PFAS-related lawsuits in his court in a request to the JPML in August 2025. However, the JPML said it was unnecessary, indicating that adding a potentially large number of non-AFFF claims would unnecessarily increase Judge Gergel’s already substantial workload of managing the complex AFFF litigation.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.