If your fire district or department bought PFAS-treated turnout gear in New York, this proposed class action seeks the money you spent buying and replacing it — but no class is certified and there is nothing to claim yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. The defendants have not been found liable, there is no certified class, and there is nothing to claim at this time. Several defendants deny the allegations. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A New York fire district has filed a proposed class action alleging that the makers and suppliers of firefighter turnout gear knew for decades that the gear contained toxic PFAS "forever chemicals" and sold it anyway without warning the departments that bought it. The case is captioned Maybrook Fire District, NY v. 3M Company, et al. The complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange, on June 4, 2026, and was then removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where it is docketed as No. 7:26-cv-05016.The named plaintiff is a municipal fire district in Orange County. It seeks to represent all fire districts, fire departments, cities, villages, towns, and other local or municipal government entities in New York that paid to buy or replace turnout gear designed, made, marketed, distributed, or sold by the defendants. Importantly, the complaint asks for the districts' economic losses — the money spent on PFAS-containing gear and the cost of replacing it with PFAS-free gear — rather than personal-injury damages for individual firefighters.
Who Is Named as a Defendant?
The complaint names a mix of chemical makers, material suppliers, gear manufacturers, and a distributor. According to the filing:- Chemical makers: 3M Company (formerly Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing); DuPont de Nemours, Inc.; EIDP, Inc. (formerly E.I. du Pont de Nemours, referred to as "Old DuPont"); The Chemours Company; The Chemours Company FC, LLC; and Corteva, Inc.
- Material suppliers & gear manufacturers: Globe Manufacturing Company, LLC; W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.; Lion Group, Inc.; MSA Safety Inc.; and Innotex Corp.
- Distributor: Morris-Croker LLC, doing business as Fire-End & Croker Corporation.
Plaintiffs allege 3M and DuPont manufactured the underlying PFAS chemicals and sold PFAS materials to gear makers such as Globe, Gore, Innotex, and Lion, which then built and sold the finished turnout gear that reached New York departments. These allegations are unproven, and several defendants have publicly disputed similar claims.
What the Lawsuit Alleges
"Turnout gear" (also called bunker gear) is the coats, pants, hoods, helmets, gloves, and boots firefighters wear on calls. The complaint alleges that PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, nicknamed "forever chemicals" because they resist breaking down — have been found in all three layers of the gear: the outer shell, the moisture barrier, and the thermal liner.The plaintiff points to peer-reviewed research, including studies by University of Notre Dame researchers and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that it says detected PFAS in new and used turnout gear, with concentrations that could increase as the gear is abraded, heated, or weathered in normal use. The complaint also alleges that internal company records dating back decades show 3M and DuPont knew PFAS were toxic and bioaccumulative, yet continued to market the gear as safe. The lawsuit further alleges that regulators, including the U.S. EPA, have taken action on PFAS, citing the EPA's 2024 drinking-water limits and 3M's and DuPont/Chemours/Corteva's large PFAS water-contamination settlements as background. Every one of these points is an allegation the plaintiff will have to prove.
The complaint brings claims for civil conspiracy and strict products liability, strict liability for defective design, strict products liability for failure to warn, and violations of New York's consumer-protection statutes (General Business Law §§ 349 and 350). Plaintiffs allege the defendants concealed what they knew and failed to put any PFAS warning on the gear's labels, and that safer PFAS-free alternatives were feasible.
You can read the full class action complaint below:
Who Would Be Covered by the Proposed Class?
As pleaded, the proposed class is every fire district, fire department, city, village, town, or other local or municipal government entity in New York that incurred costs to buy or replace turnout gear made, marketed, distributed, or sold by the defendants. This is a government/entity class focused on money the districts spent — not a personal-injury class for individual firefighters, and not a consumer class for the general public.The complaint illustrates the alleged harm with the named district's own gear inventory and notes that a single set of turnout gear (excluding respirators) can cost roughly $3,000 to $6,000, so replacing contaminated gear across departments could be a substantial expense. No class has been certified, and the court has not decided whether the case can proceed on behalf of any group.
What the Fire Districts Are Asking For
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, treble (tripled) damages and attorneys' fees available under New York's consumer-protection laws, punitive damages, plus interest and costs. In practical terms, the plaintiff wants the defendants to pay back what New York fire districts spent on PFAS-containing gear and what they will spend replacing it with PFAS-free gear. Whether any of that is awarded depends on how the litigation unfolds.Is There Anything to Claim Right Now?
No. This is a newly filed complaint that has been removed to federal court. There is no settlement, no settlement fund, no certified class, and no claim form. Nothing is available to file, and no money is being paid out. If the case is certified and later settles or results in a judgment, eligible entities would typically receive notice about their options at that point.Fire districts or municipalities that believe they may be affected should keep their own purchase and replacement records, but they do not need to take any action based on this page. This article is informational only and is not legal advice.
What Happens Next?
Because the case was removed to the Southern District of New York, the early stages will likely involve motion practice — the plaintiff may seek to send the case back to state court, and the defendants may move to dismiss. If the case survives, the parties would move into discovery and, eventually, a motion on whether to certify the class. PFAS litigation has historically moved slowly and is frequently consolidated or coordinated with other cases. We will update this page as the docket develops.Frequently Asked Questions
Who is being sued in the firefighter turnout gear PFAS lawsuit?
The proposed class action names 3M, DuPont de Nemours, EIDP (Old DuPont), The Chemours Company, Chemours FC, Corteva, Globe Manufacturing, W.L. Gore & Associates, Lion Group, MSA Safety, Innotex, and Morris-Croker (d/b/a Fire-End & Croker). Plaintiffs allege these companies designed, made, supplied, or sold PFAS-containing turnout gear or the chemicals in it. These are unproven allegations.
Who would the proposed class cover?
As pleaded, the proposed class is fire districts, fire departments, cities, villages, towns, and other local or municipal government entities in New York that paid to buy or replace firefighter turnout gear made or sold by the defendants. It is a government/entity class seeking money spent on gear — not an individual personal-injury class. No class has been certified.
Is this about firefighter cancer or about the cost of gear?
This particular complaint seeks economic damages — the money fire districts spent buying PFAS-containing gear and the cost of replacing it with PFAS-free gear. It cites firefighter cancer research as background for why the gear is alleged to be dangerous, but the relief sought is the districts' financial loss, not personal-injury compensation for individual firefighters.
Is there a settlement or anything to claim right now?
No. This is a newly filed complaint. There is no settlement, no settlement fund, no certified class, and no claim form. No money is available and there is nothing to file at this stage.
What court is the case in?
The complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange (a state trial court) on June 4, 2026, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (No. 7:26-cv-05016) on June 12, 2026.
Sources
- Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, Maybrook Fire District, NY v. 3M Company, et al., Sup. Ct. N.Y., Orange County (filed June 4, 2026), removed to S.D.N.Y. No. 7:26-cv-05016 (June 12, 2026): Complaint (PDF).
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), research on PFAS in firefighter turnout gear textiles, nist.gov.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, epa.gov.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
