> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.legalexaminer.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # PFAS Turnout Gear Lawsuits Grow as Fire Departments, Cities Sue 3M, Dupont - URL: https://www.legalexaminer.com/lestaffer/health/pfas-turnout-gear-lawsuits-grow-as-fire-departments-cities-sue-3m-dupont/ - Published: 2026-10-01T16:21:04.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-01T20:42:55.000Z - Description: On September 12, another 28 municipalities and fire departments sued 3M, DuPont, and Honeywell, alleging PFAS in firefighter turnout gear contaminated their facilities and equipment. Filed into the existing MDL, the case is separate from the more than 15,000+ plaintiffs in the AFFF foam litigation. - Author: Legal Examiner Staffer - Tags: Health, Workplace The PFAS firefighter turnout gear litigation further expanded as 28 cities, counties, townships, fire districts, and fire departments sued Dupont, 3M, and other manufacturers on September 12, 2026. They allege the turnout gear meant to protect firefighters was made with PFAS "forever chemicals." The suit was filed as part of an existing federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) for firefighter gear claims. Plaintiffs include firefighters who claim they were harmed by carcinogenic chemicals in their protective equipment. The turnout gear lawsuits are a separate wave of litigation from the [AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits](https://www.legalexaminer.com/lestaffer/health/why-are-pfas-firefighting-foam-lawsuits-taking-so-long/) that began in 2018, which now has more than 15,000 cases. The new filing by cities, fire districts, and others seeks to recover economic losses associated with PFAS contamination. ## Who Filed and Who’s Being Sued in the Latest Turnout Gear Lawsuit? There are 28 public entities from more than a dozen states plaintiffs in the [firefighter turnout gear lawsuit](https://www.fox9.com/news/28-cities-sue-3m-dupont-honeywell-over-pfas-firefighter-gear?ref=legalexaminer.com) filed mid-September. They include large fire departments in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Indiana, as well as single-station volunteer departments serving fewer than 1,000 residents. The defendants are well-known, major manufacturers like 3M, DuPont, and Honeywell, along with Fire-Dex, LLC, of Medina, Ohio. The PFAS firefighter gear lawsuit targets chemical suppliers, component makers, and gear manufacturers. ## About the Firefighter Gear MDL An MDL combines related federal cases before one judge for pretrial work such as discovery, which avoids similar proceedings from tying up courts and inconsistent rulings. The firefighter turnout gear MDL was created on August 18, 2026, following an influx of lawsuits that alleged plaintiffs were exposed to PFAS, causing a range of cancers and other health issues. It covers only turnout gear cases that do not also allege foam exposure. [MDL 3191](https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3191-Transfer%5FOrder-7-26.pdf?ref=legalexaminer.com) was assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan in Minnesota. The location was chosen in part due to 3M’s headquarters in the state. ## What Do the Plaintiffs in the Turnout Gear MDL Allege? The firefighter turnout gear MDL says PFAS are present in all three layers of structural turnout gear: the outer shell, the moisture barrier, and the thermal liner. The municipalities, fire departments, and others claim the defendants knew for decades that PFAS are toxic and build up in the body, yet sold the gear as safe and protective. They say the gear’s forever chemicals migrated onto firefighters' skin, into fire stations, and into the equipment used to store and clean the gear. Plaintiffs are seeking to recover economic losses from spending money to test, remove and replace contaminated gear and remove PFAS from their facilities. ## How are Firefighters Exposed to PFAS through Their Gear? Researchers have pointed to several possible ways firefighters were exposed to PFAS through their turnout gear. A 2020 [University of Notre Dame study](https://www.firerescue1.com/personal-protective-equipment-ppe/articles/study-finds-high-levels-of-pfas-in-turnout-gear-CMRo7kC9SBX1pDLw/?ref=legalexaminer.com) found high fluorine levels in the outer shell and moisture barrier. It concluded PFAS could transfer to the thermal liner touching the skin. Other research by the [National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)](https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/01/wear-and-tear-may-cause-firefighter-gear-release-more-forever-chemicals?ref=legalexaminer.com) found that turnout gear textiles released more PFAS after simulated wear and tear. They followed that up with a later study that found the forever chemicals in firefighters’ gloves and hoods. Another study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials in January 2026 found PFAS inside breathing apparatus masks, raising concerns the dangerous toxins could be inhaled. While these and other studies have connected PFAS contamination to serious illnesses, the science is not absolute. Some research has found that there was little airborne PFAS released from gear used in training. ## What Health Conditions are Linked to PFAS? The International Agency for Research on Cancer [classifies PFOA as "carcinogenic to humans"](https://www.iarc.who.int/faq/iarc-monographs-evaluate-the-carcinogenicity-of-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa-and-perfluorooctanesulfonic-acid-pfos?ref=legalexaminer.com) (Group 1). The classification rests on animal evidence, signs in exposed people that PFOA disrupts the body in ways known to promote cancer, and limited human evidence for kidney and testicular cancer. PFOS is rated possibly carcinogenic – a forever chemical found in turnout gear. The [Environmental Protection Agency](https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas?ref=legalexaminer.com) says exposure to certain PFAS may lead to reproductive effects and reduced immune response. Studies have also found associations with altered thyroid function, liver and kidney disease, and cancer. In the firefighter turnout gear lawsuit, plaintiffs allege they developed cancers and thyroid disease, experienced immune suppression, and suffered reproductive and developmental harm. It’s important to note that the IARC's classification identifies a hazard, not the risk at a given exposure level. Also, no court has found that turnout gear caused any firefighter's illness, but the allegation will be tested during bellwether trials. ## How Turnout Gear Litigation is Different from the AFFF Foam Lawsuits The AFFF firefighting foam MDL includes more than 15,000 cases. The biggest difference between it and the turnout gear is the product – the foam used to put out fires versus the gear firefighters wear. Plaintiffs in the AFFF litigation who allege they developed a health condition connected to toxic firefighting foam include firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, residents who lived near bases, airports, or training sites, and family members. There are also local governments, public utility providers, and property and landowners in the firefighting foam MDL. In contrast, the turnout gear litigation has two clear tracks: personal injury claims by firefighters, and economic loss and property damage claims by public entities, like municipalities. While different, there are similarities between the AFFF foam and turnout gear litigation. Both involve the same chemical family, and both have workplace exposure claims. Another similarity is the defendants. 3M and Dupont-related companies are named in both lawsuits, and face allegations of concealing known risks. To date, AFFF foam manufacturers have agreed to pay over $14.5 to clean up public water supplies contaminated by PFAS. That includes a [landmark settlement with 3M](https://investors.3m.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1836/3m-settlement-with-public-water-suppliers-to-address-pfas?ref=legalexaminer.com), which involves paying $10.3 billion over 13 years. ## What’s Next for the PFAS Turnout Gear Litigation? The firefighter turnout gear MDL is in early stages – it was only consolidated in August. The next steps will likely include appointing plaintiffs' leadership, filing complaints, and defendants' motions to dismiss. Similar to other toxic exposure cases in the U.S., the firefighter turnout gear MDL may expand significantly; as awareness grows of possible exposure through turnout gear and the costs of contamination causes cities, counties, townships, fire districts, and fire departments financial struggles, there’s a potential for hundreds, if not thousands, of more cases to be filed. Fire departments and firefighters considering a claim should consult an experienced attorney about their options and time limits.