The PFAS firefighter gear lawsuits are a set of federal cases in which individual firefighters and municipalities accuse chemical companies and turnout gear manufacturers of selling protective clothing loaded with toxic “forever chemicals” while hiding the health risks. Defendants include 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, Globe Manufacturing, W.L. Gore & Associates, Honeywell, and Lion Group, among others. As of mid-2026, the lead cases have cleared early motions to dismiss, no settlements have been reached in any gear-specific case, and a motion is pending to consolidate the growing docket into its own multidistrict litigation.
Why PFAS Is in Turnout Gear
Structural firefighting gear is built in three layers: an outer shell, a moisture barrier, and a thermal liner. PFAS shows up in all three. Outer shells are treated with fluorinated polymers to repel water and chemicals. Moisture barriers typically use polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), a PFAS compound, to block steam and liquids from reaching the skin. Thermal liners that aren’t intentionally treated still accumulate PFAS that migrates inward from the outer layers.
National Institute of Standards and Technology researchers have identified more than 20 types of PFAS in turnout gear textiles, with concentrations reaching 182,000 parts per trillion in outer shell fabrics.1NIST. Wear and Tear May Cause Firefighter Gear To Release More Forever Chemicals A follow-up study in December 2024 found PFAS in 25 of 32 samples pulled from gloves, hoods, and wildland gear.2NIST. PFAS Found in Firefighter Gloves, Hoods, and Wildland Gear Normal wear and tear, NIST found, causes gear textiles to release more PFAS over time.
How Firefighters Are Exposed
The lawsuits allege exposure happens through routine use, not only at fire scenes. A 2023 peer-reviewed study documented several pathways: PFAS migrating from treated outer shells into inner layers that contact skin, degradation from UV light and repeated laundering releasing inhalable fluorotelomer alcohols, and PFAS-laden smoke infiltrating through openings at the collar, waist, and wrists.3National Library of Medicine. PFAS in Firefighter Turnout Gear Textiles Gloves and hoods draw particular concern because they sit directly against skin.2NIST. PFAS Found in Firefighter Gloves, Hoods, and Wildland Gear
Blood testing has confirmed firefighters carry elevated levels of at least one PFAS type compared to the general population.4National Library of Medicine. Firefighters’ Exposure to Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) as an Occupational Hazard Isolating gear’s specific contribution is difficult, because firefighters also encounter PFAS through firefighting foam, station dust, and combustion byproducts.
The Cancer Link
In 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer reclassified occupational exposure as a firefighter from “possibly carcinogenic” to “carcinogenic to humans (Group 1),” its highest designation. IARC found sufficient evidence firefighting causes mesothelioma and bladder cancer, with limited evidence linking it to colon, prostate, and testicular cancers, melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.5IARC. IARC Monographs Volume 132 – Occupational Exposure as a Firefighter NIOSH has reported firefighters face a 9% higher risk of cancer diagnosis and a 14% higher risk of cancer-related death than the general U.S. population.6NFPA. Firefighters and Cancer PFAS exposure in the broader literature has been linked to kidney and testicular cancer, though NIST has stressed that its gear studies were designed to generate exposure data, not to draw direct conclusions about health outcomes.1NIST. Wear and Tear May Cause Firefighter Gear To Release More Forever Chemicals
The Lead Cases and Where They Stand
The litigation is moving on two tracks. Municipalities are bringing class actions to recover the cost of replacing contaminated gear. Individual firefighters diagnosed with cancer are filing personal-injury claims. Several cases anchor the docket.
Butte-Silver Bow, Montana
The city and county of Butte-Silver Bow filed what has become the lead municipal class action on April 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The suit, brought by Hagens Berman, names 3M, DuPont/Chemours, Corteva, Globe Manufacturing, W.L. Gore & Associates, and Lion Group.7Courthouse News Service. Firefighting Gear Manufacturers Can’t Duck Montana Suit Over PFAS Contamination The complaint alleges the defendants ran a “PFAS Concealment Enterprise” to hide gear dangers, and it brings 89 claims including federal RICO counts, strict product liability, failure to warn, breach of warranty, negligence, and state consumer protection violations.8Hagens Berman. Butte, Montana Files Class Action Lawsuit Fighting PFAS in Firefighter Turnout Gear
The proposed class covers fire departments nationwide that bought PFAS-containing gear, structured as a national class for RICO and state-specific subclasses across more than 30 states.9Courthouse News Service. Butte-Silver Bow Complaint Plaintiffs’ counsel estimate replacement costs of at least $3,000 per firefighter, and with roughly one million U.S. firefighters, project total damages in the billions.10Hagens Berman. Montana Court Denies Motions To Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit Fighting PFAS in Firefighter Turnout Gear
On January 6, 2026, Chief District Judge Brian Morris denied all of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, rejecting their arguments on standing, personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. He declined to stay the case under the first-to-file rule, finding the Montana complaint contained novel claims. The RICO claim was allowed to proceed, with the dismissal motion denied without prejudice pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Biederman, which will address whether the indirect purchaser rule applies to RICO.7Courthouse News Service. Firefighting Gear Manufacturers Can’t Duck Montana Suit Over PFAS Contamination By spring 2026, Little Rock, St. Louis, and Baltimore had voted to join.11THV11. Little Rock Joins Cities Suing Manufacturers of Firefighter Gear
Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut
The Connecticut union filed a class action in the District of Connecticut in June 2024 against 18 companies, including 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, Globe Manufacturing, W.L. Gore, Fire-Dex, Honeywell Safety Products, Lion Group, and Milliken & Company.12Seeger Gaskins Torices LLP. Fire Fighter Protective Gear PFAS Class Action Unlike the Montana case, this is a personal-injury class action alleging PFAS migrated from gear into firefighters’ bodies through skin absorption, inhalation, and ingestion.
Judge Alvin W. Thompson denied the defendants’ motions to stay the case pending possible transfer to the AFFF MDL in October 2024.13CourtListener. Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut v. 3M Company In January 2026, he granted the plaintiffs jurisdictional discovery and denied the defendants’ personal-jurisdiction dismissal motions without prejudice pending completion of that discovery.14PACER Monitor. Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut v. 3M Company Gentex was voluntarily dismissed in August 2024. The case remains active with filings continuing through at least June 2026.
San Mateo County, California
San Mateo County filed its class action on March 19, 2026, in the Northern District of California, naming 19 chemical companies. Like the Montana suit, it relies on a RICO theory, alleging defendants supplied gear with hazardous levels of PFAS while concealing the risks.15Law360. 3M, DuPont Hit With RICO Suit Over PFAS in Firefighter Gear The case is in its early stages.
Individual Personal-Injury Suits
Individual firefighters are filing their own claims. Richmond, Virginia firefighter Jonathan Clarke sued 3M, Honeywell International, DuPont, Chemours, Lion Group, Globe Manufacturing, and MSA Safety, alleging PFAS exposure through his turnout gear caused him to develop leukemia. His complaint asserts negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.16Fire Law Blog. Virginia Firefighter Sues PPE Manufacturers Over Leukemia The case was removed from Virginia state court to federal court after 3M argued that some alleged exposure involved firefighting foam manufactured under federal military specifications. 3M has said it intends to seek transfer to the AFFF MDL.
Why These Cases Aren’t in the AFFF MDL
Since 2018, thousands of PFAS claims tied to aqueous film-forming foam have been consolidated in MDL No. 2873 in the District of South Carolina, which held roughly 15,200 active cases as of mid-2026.17Drugwatch. Firefighter Gear PFAS Lawsuits The overlap in defendants and chemistry raised the question of whether gear cases belonged there too.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation said no. In an order filed December 11, 2025, the Panel denied motions to transfer four turnout-gear-only actions into the AFFF MDL, reaffirming that MDL No. 2873 is “an AFFF MDL, not a PFAS MDL.” Expanding it to cover all PFAS claims, the Panel said, would make it “unwieldy,” even though the presiding MDL judge had suggested consolidation could improve efficiency.18U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. MDL-2873 Order Denying Transfer A motion filed May 19, 2026 asks the Panel to create a separate, gear-specific MDL.17Drugwatch. Firefighter Gear PFAS Lawsuits If approved, it would place the municipal and personal-injury gear cases before a single federal judge.
What the Defendants Are Saying
The defendants have mostly responded through procedural motions rather than public statements. In Montana, they collectively argued lack of standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and that the case should be paused under the first-to-file rule. Judge Morris rejected each argument, and representatives declined to comment to reporters after the ruling.7Courthouse News Service. Firefighting Gear Manufacturers Can’t Duck Montana Suit Over PFAS Contamination
3M has offered the most public response. In a statement tied to the Connecticut litigation, the company said it would “address PFAS litigation by defending itself in court or through negotiated resolutions, all as appropriate,” and described its approach to PFAS as evolving with science and regulation.19FireRescue1. Conn. Firefighters Sue 3M, DuPont Over PFAS in Firefighting Gear In December 2022, 3M announced it would exit all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025.203M. 3M To Exit PFAS Manufacturing by the End of 2025 Its 2026 annual report says it completed that exit on schedule, though an independent analysis found 3M continues to sell roughly 14,000 products containing PFAS and still uses 139 types of the chemicals in its operations, with sales of previously manufactured PFAS more than doubling in 2025.21ChemSec. 3M Promised To Phase Out PFAS – How Has It Turned Out
Separately, Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva reached an $875 million settlement with New Jersey in August 2025 to resolve state environmental PFAS claims, including AFFF contamination.22Corteva. Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva Reach Agreement With the State of New Jersey That deal covers environmental contamination, not turnout gear claims, but shows the scale of PFAS liability these companies face on other fronts.
No Gear Settlements Yet
As of mid-2026, no settlements have been reported in any lawsuit specifically targeting PFAS in firefighter turnout gear. The Montana case has just cleared its motion-to-dismiss stage. The Connecticut case is still in jurisdictional discovery. Some plaintiffs’ attorneys have projected individual settlement values ranging from under $75,000 for weaker claims to $200,000–$500,000 for stronger ones, but those figures are extrapolations from broader PFAS litigation, not offers or rulings in gear-specific cases.
Is PFAS-Free Gear Available?
According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, every turnout gear product on the market as of late 2024 contained PFAS.23West Virginia Watch. Firefighter Turnout Gear Riddled With Toxic PFAS; Alternatives Aren’t Readily Available Alternatives exist in labs and pilots, including graphene nanofibers, cellulose-based fibers, polyurethane films, and silicon-based coatings, but the NFPA’s structural gear standard (formerly NFPA 1971) long included performance tests, including UV degradation resistance, that PFAS-free moisture barriers had trouble passing. The IAFF called those requirements “illogical” and filed a formal amendment request in 2021, which the NFPA denied.
In 2024, the NFPA introduced NFPA 1970, a consolidated standard replacing NFPA 1971. It includes a restricted substances list covering PFAS and lowers certain performance thresholds — for moisture barrier liquid penetration resistance, durability, and breathability — to make it easier for PFAS-free materials to certify.24Milliken. NFPA Standards The U.S. Fire Administration described the new standard as addressing restricted substances like PFAS “in a meaningful way with improved testing methods.”25USFA/FEMA. New Standard for Firefighter Personal Protective Equipment The PFAS Alternatives Act, which would fund research into PFAS-free firefighting materials, had been introduced in Congress but had not passed as of 2026.23West Virginia Watch. Firefighter Turnout Gear Riddled With Toxic PFAS; Alternatives Aren’t Readily Available Only one durable, water-resistant coating has been independently verified as fluorine-free, so fire departments looking to buy truly PFAS-free gear still have limited options.