Firefighter Turnout Gear PFAS Lawsuit
(Non-AFFF Protective Clothing)

Turnout gear, also called bunker gear, is the heavy protective clothing that structural firefighters wear when responding to fires. A typical ensemble is built from three fabric layers that work together: an outer shell that resists flame and abrasion, a moisture barrier that blocks water and other liquids while allowing some breathability, and a thermal liner that provides insulation from heat.

For years, manufacturers used PFAS chemistry in two parts of this system. A durable water repellent (DWR) finish was applied to the outer shell to shed water and oils, and a fluoropolymer membrane was used in the moisture barrier. PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a large family of synthetic chemicals valued in industry for their resistance to water, oil, and heat. They are commonly called "forever chemicals" because they break down very slowly and can persist in the body and the environment.

Independent testing by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a federal science agency, measured PFAS in the three layers of turnout gear. NIST found that PFAS were concentrated in the outer shell and the moisture barrier, at levels that in some samples were far higher than in the thermal liner. NIST identified the durable water repellent finish on the outer shell as a primary source, because outer-shell samples without that finish contained substantially less PFAS. Separate NIST work found that ordinary wear — including abrasion, heat, laundering, and weathering — can change and in some cases increase the amount of PFAS that gear releases over its service life.

This testing is central to the litigation because the plaintiffs allege that the gear they bought contained PFAS and that the presence and potential risks of these chemicals were not adequately disclosed in how the gear was marketed and sold.

The plaintiffs' claims are economic, but the underlying concern is the health profile of PFAS. Federal health agencies describe a range of possible effects, and they frame much of the evidence as associations rather than proven cause and effect in every case.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that current science associates PFAS exposure with increased risk of certain cancers, including kidney and testicular cancer, along with effects on the immune system, increases in cholesterol, reproductive effects, and developmental effects in infants and children. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of the CDC, describes evidence of an association — not established causation — for increased cholesterol, small decreases in birth weight, reduced vaccine antibody response in children, and kidney and testicular cancer.

In December 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, published Monograph Volume 135. IARC classified PFOA as "carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1) and classified PFOS as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B). PFOA and PFOS are two of the most studied PFAS compounds. A hazard classification reflects the strength of the evidence that a substance can cause cancer; it does not by itself measure the risk to any one person.

It is easy to confuse this litigation with the larger AFFF firefighting-foam litigation, but they are different cases about different products.

MDL-2873, pending in the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard Gergel, concerns aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a firefighting foam, and PFAS contamination linked to its use, including personal-injury and water-contamination claims. MDL-3191 concerns PFAS in the protective clothing worn by firefighters, and it is brought through purchaser class actions and individual suits by public entities (including RICO claims).

When it created MDL-3191, the Panel specifically declined to fold these turnout-gear cases into the AFFF MDL. It reasoned that the turnout-gear cases previously sent to the AFFF MDL had also carried AFFF claims, whereas these new actions were turnout-gear-only cases. The Panel concluded that expanding the AFFF MDL to cover turnout-gear-only claims would take that MDL a step too far from the foam claims at its core, and it added "Non-AFFF" to the case name to keep the two distinct.

The class plaintiffs allege they purchased turnout gear containing PFAS and bring substantially similar claims on behalf of overlapping nationwide and state classes of purchasers. The claims include negligence, strict products liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of state consumer-protection laws. The common question that ties the cases together is whether the PFAS in the gear posed a risk and whether that was properly disclosed in how the gear was marketed and sold.

Based on the JPML transfer order, the defendants include manufacturers of turnout gear and its component textiles, along with chemical companies that supplied PFAS materials: 3M Company, Globe Manufacturing, Elevate Textiles, Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Honeywell Safety Products USA, Fire-Dex, Lion Group, Morning Pride Manufacturing, Southern Mills (TenCate Protective Fabrics USA), EIDP (formerly DuPont), DuPont de Nemours, The Chemours Company, Corteva, Milliken & Company, W.L. Gore & Associates, and Stedfast USA, among others.

Public-entity suit. On September 12, 2026, 28 public entities, including Albuquerque and Gary, filed a multi-plaintiff, non-class complaint in the District of Minnesota under MDL-3191 (No. 0:26-cv-03983). Each entity sues on its own behalf. The claims include RICO, product, fraud, and conspiracy counts against 3M, Chemours, DuPont/EIDP, Corteva, Honeywell, Gore, Lion, Globe, and others. The complaint disclaims AFFF claims.

Structural firefighter protective clothing is governed by consensus standards from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The standard historically known as NFPA 1971 was consolidated into NFPA 1970, issued in October 2024, which combines several personal protective equipment standards and, according to NFPA, addresses PFAS and restricted substances in firefighter gear.

Separately, and as general background on PFAS regulation rather than a turnout-gear rule, the EPA finalized the first national drinking-water limits for PFOA and PFOS in April 2024. On May 18, 2026, the EPA proposed keeping the PFOA and PFOS limits at 4.0 parts per trillion, with an optional two extra years (to 2031) to comply, and rescinding the 2024 limits for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and the hazard index. Those changes are proposals, not final rules. Drinking-water regulation is context on how federal agencies view PFAS generally, not a standard specific to protective clothing.

Because MDL-3191 is made up of purchaser class actions and individual suits by public entities (including RICO claims), the people and entities it covers are different from a personal-injury case. As pleaded, the putative classes are made up of purchasers of PFAS-containing turnout gear, which can include:

• Fire departments and fire districts that bought turnout gear.
• Municipalities and other government entities that purchased gear for their firefighters.
• Individual firefighters who purchased their own turnout gear.

Some public entities are also suing on their own behalf: 28 filed a joint, non-class complaint on September 12, 2026.

The relief sought is economic — tied to the purchase of the gear and how it was marketed — rather than compensation for a specific illness or injury. Personal-injury claims for illness are a separate matter and are not part of this MDL as it stands.