PFAS Firefighters’ Turnout Gear Contains “Forever Chemicals” — Here’s What the Growing PFAS Lawsuit Means for You

The protective gear firefighters wear every day may be quietly poisoning them. Multiple class action lawsuits now allege that companies like 3M, DuPont, and Chemours sold firefighter turnout gear packed with PFAS — toxic “forever chemicals” — while hiding what they knew about the health risks for decades. California’s San Mateo County filed the latest suit in March 2026. No settlement exists yet, but this fast-moving litigation is reshaping how America thinks about firefighter safety.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Case Name (Montana)	City and County of Butte-Silver Bow v. 3M Company, et al.
Case Number	2:25-cv-00036-BMM
Court	U.S. District Court, District of Montana
California Filing	San Mateo County v. 3M, Chemours, DuPont et al. (March 19, 2026)
Defendants	3M, DuPont de Nemours, Chemours, Corteva, Globe Manufacturing, W.L. Gore & Associates, Lion Group
Settlement Amount	No settlement — active litigation
Claim Deadline	TBD — no claims open for individual firefighters yet
Who Is Affected	Fire departments, municipalities, and firefighters exposed to PFAS-containing turnout gear
Settlement Status	Litigation phase — motion to dismiss denied January 2026
Lead Attorneys	Hagens Berman; Bliven Law Firm; Heenan & Cook

Where Things Stand Right Now

• On January 6, 2026, a federal judge in Montana denied all motions to dismiss the Butte-Silver Bow class action — a major win for plaintiffs — allowing the case to move into the discovery phase.
• On March 19, 2026, San Mateo County, California filed a separate RICO class action in federal court against 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and others, escalating the national litigation even further.
• A First Amended Complaint was filed in the Montana case on March 13, 2026, expanding the allegations and strengthening the legal claims.

What Are PFAS and Why Are They in Firefighter Gear?

PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. These are a group of thousands of synthetic chemicals that manufacturers have used for decades because they resist heat, water, and oil extremely well. They earned the nickname “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally in the environment — or in the human body.

Turnout gear — the protective pants, jackets, hoods, helmets, boots, and gloves firefighters wear into burning buildings — has long relied on PFAS to do its job. The chemicals help the outer shell repel flames, the moisture barrier block water, and the thermal liner withstand intense heat. All three layers of a typical turnout suit contain PFAS, according to peer-reviewed scientific studies cited in the lawsuits.

The problem is that PFAS do not stay locked inside the fabric. Research shows the chemicals shed through direct skin contact and become airborne during firefighting operations, meaning firefighters absorb them through their skin and lungs every single time they suit up.

Related article: Target’s Good & Gather Tuna Claims It’s “Sustainably Caught” — A New Lawsuit Says That’s Not True

What Do the Lawsuits Actually Allege?

The lawsuits make two core accusations. First, that the defendant companies knew for years that PFAS in their products caused serious health risks — including multiple forms of cancer — but sold the gear anyway. Second, that they actively concealed what they knew, hiding internal research from the public, firefighters, and fire departments.

The Montana federal court found that “Defendants could not have achieved their goals of selling PFAS and turnout gear containing PFAS if defendants’ knowledge of the harms of PFAS had been exposed,” and concluded the allegations did not describe ordinary commercial activity but rather a deliberate cover-up.

The lawsuits bring claims including negligence, conspiracy, violations of the federal RICO Act, failure to warn, design defect, warranty breaches, deceptive trade practices, and violations of state consumer protection and product liability laws. RICO — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — is typically used in organized crime cases, but courts have allowed it here because plaintiffs allege the manufacturers coordinated to conceal the dangers.

The California filing by San Mateo County adds another dimension: a government entity suing on behalf of the public interest and its own firefighters, seeking to recover the enormous cost of replacing contaminated gear.

The Cancer Toll on Firefighters

The human stakes behind these lawsuits are severe. Studies cited in the lawsuits project that up to 70 percent of firefighters may eventually die from cancer — a rate significantly higher than the general population — and occupational cancer is the leading cause of line-of-duty death in fire service.

Plaintiffs in these cases have been diagnosed with a range of conditions, including kidney cancer, thyroid cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, and thyroid disease. They claim they used the products as intended and were never informed of the risks, nor given protective measures to guard against PFAS exposure.

Research specifically links PFOA — one of the most common PFAS chemicals found in turnout gear — to testicular cancer, mesothelioma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and prostate cancer. These are among the same cancers that firefighters contract at disproportionately higher rates than the rest of the public.

Which Brands of Gear Are Involved?

Affected turnout gear was allegedly manufactured and sold by 3M Company, DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, Globe Manufacturing Company, W.L. Gore & Associates, and Lion Group — among the nation’s leading suppliers of fire-resistant gear, meaning many firefighters and fire departments have likely been affected. Attorneys continue to investigate other brands of turnout gear for the presence of PFAS.

If your fire department purchased turnout gear from any of these manufacturers, your department or municipality may fall within the scope of the class action.

Who Is This Lawsuit For — Firefighters or Fire Departments?

This is an important distinction that many people miss. The class action lawsuits filed by Butte-Silver Bow (Montana) and San Mateo County (California) primarily seek to represent fire departments and municipalities — government entities that purchased contaminated gear and now face the enormous cost of replacing it.

Turnout gear costs approximately $3,000 per suit, with many departments providing two suits per firefighter. With approximately 1,042,000 firefighters in the United States, replacement costs could run into the billions. The lawsuits argue those costs should fall on the manufacturers who concealed the risks — not on local governments and taxpayers.

Individual firefighters with cancer or other PFAS-related illnesses have separate legal avenues. The larger AFFF (firefighting foam) multi-district litigation in federal court handles many individual personal injury claims, and over 9,340 claims had been consolidated in the AFFF MDL as of July 2025, with billions of dollars already awarded in PFAS-related settlements.

What Has Already Been Settled in Related PFAS Cases?

While the turnout gear class actions are still in early litigation, PFAS litigation as a whole has already produced major results. Companies including DuPont and Chemours reached settlements exceeding $1 billion in related PFAS claims. 3M separately agreed to pay billions to settle AFFF-related water contamination claims.

These prior settlements set a precedent, but they do not automatically compensate firefighters or municipalities for turnout gear claims. Those cases remain separate and are actively moving through the courts in 2026.

Key Dates in the Turnout Gear Litigation

Milestone	Date
Butte-Silver Bow Complaint Filed	April 3, 2025
Montana Motion to Dismiss Denied	January 6, 2026
First Amended Complaint Filed (Montana)	March 13, 2026
San Mateo County RICO Suit Filed	March 19, 2026
Discovery Phase Begins (Montana)	TBD
Trial Date	TBD
Settlement / Claims Open	TBD

Frequently Asked Questions

Do individual firefighters need a lawyer to pursue a PFAS claim?

Yes, individual firefighters with cancer or illness linked to PFAS exposure should consult a personal injury attorney. The current class actions primarily represent fire departments and municipalities seeking gear replacement costs. Individual health claims are handled separately, often through the AFFF multi-district litigation.

Is the PFAS firefighter gear class action legitimate?

Yes. Multiple lawsuits are active in federal courts. The Montana case, Case No. 2:25-cv-00036-BMM, survived a full motion to dismiss in January 2026. The San Mateo County case was filed in March 2026 in the Northern District of California. Both are verified court filings with active federal judges presiding.

When will firefighters or fire departments receive any payment?

No payment timeline exists yet. The cases are in early litigation — discovery has not even begun in Montana. Any compensation for fire departments or individual firefighters would come only after a trial verdict or a future settlement, which could take years to reach.

  What if I am a retired firefighter who was exposed to PFAS gear?

Retired firefighters who developed cancer or health conditions potentially related to PFAS exposure may have legal options through the AFFF multi-district litigation or separate personal injury claims. You should consult a qualified attorney promptly, as statutes of limitations vary by state and health condition.

Will any future settlement payment affect my taxes?

Possibly. Compensation from class action or personal injury settlements may be taxable depending on what the payment covers. Settlements for physical injuries are often tax-exempt, but payments for economic losses or punitive damages may not be. Consult a tax professional if and when a settlement is reached.

What is RICO and why does it apply to this case?

RICO stands for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — a federal law typically used against organized criminal enterprises. Courts have allowed it here because plaintiffs allege manufacturers coordinated as a group over decades to conceal the known dangers of PFAS in turnout gear. The Montana federal court confirmed the RICO claims were sufficiently alleged to proceed.

My fire department still uses older turnout gear. What should we do?

Fire departments concerned about PFAS exposure should contact their gear manufacturers and consult with legal counsel about their options. The National Fire Protection Association introduced new PFAS standards in late 2024, and several cities — including San Francisco — are actively phasing out PFAS-containing gear. Document all gear purchases and any related health incidents.

Is there a deadline to join the class action as a fire department or municipality?

No opt-in deadline has been publicly announced for fire departments or municipalities. The cases are still in the early litigation phase. However, fire departments and local governments interested in joining the litigation should contact class counsel promptly, as courts may eventually set deadlines as the cases progress.

Last Updated: April 11, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.