A federal judge in Hartford, Connecticut, ruled on September 15 that more than 20 defendants, including 3M, DuPont and Honeywell, must continue facing claims over alleged PFAS exposure from firefighters’ protective gear. The proposed class action involves 13 firefighter union organizations and 12 individual firefighters in Connecticut. They allege that PFAS contained in turnout gear entered firefighters’ bodies through skin absorption, ingestion and inhalation. The ruling does not establish that the companies are liable; it allows several core claims to proceed at this stage of the case.
At the center of the dispute is turnout gear — the protective jackets and pants firefighters wear while working in extreme heat and flames.
According to the complaint, PFAS-containing components included 3M’s Scotchlite reflective material and DuPont’s Kevlar, while Honeywell was among the manufacturers of turnout gear named in the litigation.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson concluded that several of the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to survive the defendants’ efforts to dismiss them.
One of the most closely watched parts of the decision concerns medical monitoring before a firefighter develops visible symptoms of cancer or another disease.
The court allowed individual firefighters to continue seeking medical-monitoring relief despite the absence of outward symptoms. Their argument is that prolonged PFAS exposure has already created injuries or risks that justify continued testing rather than waiting for a disease to become clinically apparent.
The judge also allowed negligence and failure-to-warn claims against 3M to move forward, along with a product-liability claim involving PFAS-containing materials allegedly supplied for turnout gear.
Several claims were dismissed, however, and the decision should not be read as a finding that the defendants caused disease or owe damages.
The lawsuit, filed in June 2024, still faces substantial legal and scientific questions, including exposure levels, causation, product identification and the responsibility of individual manufacturers.
For the chemical industry, the broader significance lies in where PFAS litigation is moving.
Legal exposure surrounding the substances has already extended across drinking-water contamination, firefighting foam and numerous consumer products. The Connecticut case pushes the discussion further into technical textiles, engineered materials and personal protective equipment.
That presents a particularly difficult issue for manufacturers because PFAS have historically been selected for properties such as water resistance, oil resistance, durability and performance under harsh conditions — qualities that can be difficult to replace in safety-critical applications.
The September 15 ruling does not decide the case. What it does establish is that the firefighters’ core allegations have cleared an important procedural hurdle, keeping another category of PFAS-related product liability firmly in play.
