Firefighter Turnout Gear Lawsuits Belong in MDL With Other AFFF and PFAS Exposure Lawsuits, Judge Indicates

Court wants the full scope of PFAS litigation included in the MDL, amid speculation that the parties are close to an AFFF settlement agreement.

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system is calling for similar claims over exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contained in other products to be consolidated into the multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending in his court, including claims brought by firefighters who say they developed health problems due to the use of the chemicals in their protective gear.

More than 11,000 PFAS injury lawsuits have already been consolidated in the District of South Carolina, where U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel has been presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings since 2018.

Claims include both lawsuits brought by firefighters directly exposed to AFFF during training or response exercises, as well as PFAS water contamination lawsuits filed by individuals exposed to tainted tap water caused by the chemicals, particularly around military bases, airports and other firefighter training locations.

While PFAS has been widely used for decades in firefighting foam and safety equipment, since it is resistant to heat, water and oil, the synthetic chemicals do not break down naturally, and can accumulate in soil, water and the human body over time, causing devastating side effects.

Each of the lawsuits raise similar allegations, indicating that exposure to toxic chemicals contained in firefighting foam and other fire safety equipment caused the development of testicular cancer, kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis, liver cancer, thyroid cancer and other adverse health effects.

Firefighter Turnout Gear Risks

Many of the lawsuits also involve allegations that firefighters were exposed to PFAS from their layered protective equipment, known as turnout gear, which is supposed to protect them from heat, flames and chemical exposures.

In August 2022, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association called for firefighters to reduce their PFAS exposure by limiting their use of turnout gear. The groups warned that firefighters will not be able to fully avoid the PFAS cancer risk until the chemicals are removed entirely from protective gear and AFFF foam, but they called for the development and widespread availability of such gear.

In the meantime, the group indicated that firefighters should limit the use of turnout gear to only emergency situations where it is required and suggested fire fighters remove it as soon as possible.

In a case management order (PDF) issued on August 22, Judge Gergel indicated that he believes some plaintiffs are trying to avoid being part of the MDL, by crafting their complaints omitting allegations of exposure to AFFF products.

As the court continues to push the parties to negotiate a global settlement agreement for all PFAS and AFFF lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system, Judge Gergel has asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to include all turnout gear lawsuits in the AFFF MDL, together with the other PFAS lawsuits he is already presiding over.

“Personal injury plaintiffs may have lived in many locales over their lifetimes, consume water daily, and, in many of the cases before this Court, allege that any type of AFFF has the potential to, and do, spread through groundwater, surface water, or other media well beyond the locations where they were initially used.”

– U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel

The judge said efforts to avoid having a federal PFAS injury lawsuit included in the MDL is “contrary to law,” and all claims should be centralized together, regardless of whether a plaintiff alleges exposure to contaminated drinking water, direct exposure to AFFF, firefighter turnout gear or other products containing PFAS, or some combination of the chemicals.

Concerns Over Unfiled PFAS Lawsuits

The request comes as the Court continues to encourage lawyers to file any outstanding AFFF lawsuits and PFAS lawsuits by September 5, as part of an effort for the parties to understand the full scope of the litigation.

Last month, Defendants raised concerns over information provided during court-ordered mediation, which suggested that lawyers represent tens of thousands of individuals with injury claims that have not yet been filed, which may impact the amount of any AFFF settlement.

Judge Gergel then issued an order on August 15, indicating that plaintiffs will face accelerated discovery deadlines if they fail to file their claims by September 5, including a shorter period of time to complete Plaintiffs’ Fact Sheets and disclose experts they intend to offer at trial.

While the first in a series of PFAS lawsuit bellwether trials were scheduled to begin on October 20, 2025, the Court recently delayed the start of those claims, leading to speculation that the parties may be close to a global PFAS lawsuit settlement agreement, which could resolve all claims filed prior to the deadline.

If a settlement agreement is not reached, Judge Gergel is expected to move forward with several waves of bellwether trials. While the outcomes will not be binding on other claimants, the average amounts of any AFFF lawsuit payouts awarded by juries may help drive the parties toward a middle ground that resolves the litigation.