What do the lawsuits over PFAS in firefighter gear claim?
Firefighters wear protective clothing called . Some of its layers contain . Cities, fire districts and firefighters have sued the makers. The buyers want money to replace the gear. Firefighters want damages and medical testing paid by the makers.
Jump to: who is suing · what is in the gear · the lawsuits · the Connecticut case · firefighters' own claims · NFPA standards · records to keep
Who is suing, and for what?
A short overview. Each row is explained further down, with its sources.
| Who sues | What they want | Decided so far | Still open |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cities, counties, fire districts and volunteer fire departments, grouped in Minnesota (MDL 3191) | Money to test, replace and dispose of gear, and to clean stations | A Montana judge let one case go on in July 2026. He put off most questions. | Every question of proof and liability |
| Connecticut firefighters and unions (proposed class action), now in the Minnesota court | Damages and paid medical testing | Key claims may go on (September 2026). Medical testing only as a remedy. | Whether state law allows medical testing without illness |
| Injured people or their families in Virginia and Missouri (gear-only cases) | Compensation for injuries or a death | Kept out of the foam lawsuits (December 2025) | Whether they are now part of MDL 3191 |
What has been found in turnout gear?
The federal measurement agency tested new gear textiles. It found between one and seventeen PFAS in each of twenty textiles. Most were in the outer shell and the moisture barrier, less in the thermal liner.
The same study found very little of the two best-known PFAS, and . Together with similar long-chain PFAS, they stayed below 2 in every textile. A follow-up study found the highest levels of two other PFAS: and . Both were the most concentrated PFAS in the unworn textiles of that study. These are different chemicals from PFOA and PFOS.
The follow-up study rubbed, heated, washed and weathered the textiles. Abrasion raised the measured PFAS in every coat and pants textile tested. NIST could not say from its method why the levels changed. Older and used gear also tends to contain more PFAS than new gear. Where that comes from is still being studied.
NIST, working at the request of Congress, also found PFAS in gloves and hoods. These touch the skin directly, unlike coats and pants worn over other clothing.
A 2026 NIST study then stressed gloves, hoods and wildland clothing. The results went both ways. Heat raised the total PFAS in glove layers, and abrasion and heat raised it in hoods. In wildland textiles, abrasion and weathering lowered it. NIST cannot tell whether other PFAS broke down or the worn fabric simply released more.
Does PFAS from the gear get into the body?
That is not settled. Firefighters can also take in PFAS from firefighting foam () and from dust at fires and in stations. A 2023 review lists gear, foam, and air and dust as possible sources.
A 2026 study found higher blood levels of some PFAS in 942 UK firefighters than in 282 comparison participants. Four PFAS appeared only in the firefighters in this study. Two of them are often found in gear textiles. That fits the gear as one source, but it does not prove it.
A 2025 study used silicone wristbands worn by firefighters. Some PFAS on the bands are also found in gear. The authors say contact with the gear may explain part of it. We found no study that measures how much of a firefighter's PFAS comes from the gear.
A 2026 study measured PFAS in the air of eleven fire stations in North Carolina. Levels were significantly higher in closed rooms where gear was stored than in open storage areas. The highest single value was . The body can convert it to PFOA. The authors estimate that some closed gear rooms may pose a health risk through this route.
Does firefighting cause cancer, and is that the same question?
The rates the job itself. It rates work as a firefighter as a cause of mesothelioma and bladder cancer. It found limited evidence for colon, prostate and testicular cancer, melanoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
That rating covers everything firefighters are exposed to. It includes smoke, diesel exhaust, building materials, foam and flame retardants. It is not a finding about PFAS in gear.
What is MDL 3191?
In August 2026, a panel of federal judges grouped the gear lawsuits in Minnesota. They are now called the Non-AFFF Firefighter Turnout Gear litigation, 3191. Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan hears them.
The same order describes the cases. Their plaintiffs say they bought gear containing PFAS. They claim negligence, defective products, fraud and violations of consumer protection laws. They sue for groups of buyers across the country and in single states. The named plaintiffs are cities, counties and a fire district.
The panel drew a line. Only gear cases without foam claims belong in MDL 3191. Cases that blame both the foam and the gear stay with the firefighting-foam lawsuits in South Carolina. Those lawsuits have their own rules for people who handled the foam at work. The panel noted that thousands of such personal injury cases with gear claims are pending there.
What has a court said about the buyers' claims so far?
One of the grouped cases began in Montana. Its sixteen plaintiffs are cities, counties, other towns and one fire district. They want money to replace gear bought between 2008 and 2024. They also sue under the anti-racketeering law .
In July 2026, the Montana judge denied the makers' requests to dismiss the case, without prejudice. He found some points sufficiently pleaded, such as the buyers' injury. He left most legal questions open until the panel decided. The order does not decide whether the gear is harmful, or who is liable.
Who has filed since the panel's order?
On September 12, 2026, 28 public bodies filed one complaint together in Minnesota, under the name of MDL 3191. They include cities, counties, fire districts and volunteer fire departments. Each sues on its own behalf (complaint, paragraphs 1, 4 and 15–42).
Many of them are small. Together they list about 2,295 firefighters. 18 of the 28 list 45 firefighters or fewer. This is our own count of paragraphs 15 to 42.
They want the cost to test, remove, dispose of and replace the gear. They say PFAS spread from the gear to stations, storage rooms, washing machines and vehicles (paragraphs 90–95). They say these are not personal injury claims (paragraph 92). The case is not about firefighting foam either (paragraph 5).
They also sue under RICO (counts I and II). They ask for a court-supervised program to test, replace and dispose of gear. A complaint states what the plaintiffs claim. It is not a finding of the court.
Since October 2026, a case brought by firefighters themselves is also in this court: the Connecticut case.
What did the court decide in the Connecticut firefighters' case?
In Connecticut, 13 firefighter unions and 12 firefighters brought a proposed class action under state law. None of the named firefighters says they are already ill. They say PFAS from the gear has already caused changes in their cells that raise their risk.
In September 2026, the judge let key parts of the case go forward. At this early stage, a court treats the facts the plaintiffs describe as true. It does not weigh evidence (ruling, pages 5–7).
- The firefighters may seek damages. They may also ask for a medical testing program, without having symptoms (pages 21–29).
- Medical testing was dismissed as a claim of its own. It remains possible as a remedy under the other claims. Nothing has been awarded (pages 57–59).
- The unions may pursue their own losses. They may not claim damages or medical testing for their members (pages 10–21).
- A claim against 3M for making PFAS itself was dismissed. Claims about a 3M reflective material used in gear continue (pages 41–48).
Whether Connecticut law allows medical testing claims without illness is still open. A week later, the judge declined, for now, to ask the state's highest court that question. He noted, as the plaintiffs themselves said, that appeals courts in different states have ruled differently on it.
What does the ruling not say?
It does not find that PFAS from gear made anyone sick. It does not decide who is right. It decides only which claims may go on, taking the plaintiffs' account as true (pages 5–7). It applies Connecticut law.
Where is the case now?
- On October 26, 2026, the Connecticut court recorded the case as transferred out. On October 27, 2026, the federal court in Minnesota opened it as case 0:26-cv-04315. It went to Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan, who handles MDL 3191.
As of November 1, 2026. This part changes more often than the rest of the page.
The rulings above were made in Connecticut, before the transfer. In August 2026, the panel had already named this case as related to MDL 3191 (order, page 2).
Can firefighters themselves sue over their gear?
Some do. In Connecticut, unions and 12 firefighters without a diagnosed illness sued. What the court decided is explained above.
Others have sued in Virginia and Missouri over injuries they blame on the gear alone. Some sue for a family member who died. The panel refused in December 2025 to move these injury cases into the foam lawsuits. Whether they are now part of MDL 3191 is not stated in the orders we have read.
Are the rules for new gear changing?
Massachusetts has passed a law on new gear. Since January 2025, sellers there must tell buyers in writing if gear contains PFAS, and why. From January 2027, they may not knowingly sell gear with intentionally added PFAS.
The Albuquerque complaint lists 14 states with laws on PFAS in firefighter gear (paragraph 75). They are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. This list is the plaintiffs' summary. So far we have checked only the Massachusetts law.
What do the NFPA standards say about PFAS in gear?
The publishes the standard that turnout gear is tested and certified against. NFPA 1970, 2025 edition, merged four earlier standards, including NFPA 1971 for turnout gear.
According to the NFPA, this edition adds requirements for restricted substances and optional labels for low fluorine content. NFPA 1970 took effect in September 2024 (workshop slides, page 5).
What does NFPA 1970 change for PFAS?
The table draws on slides from an NFPA workshop in April 2025. They are presentations, not the text of the standard.
| Topic | What changes | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Restricted substances | Materials must be tested by independent laboratories. A certificate confirms they meet the limits. PFAS are one of the listed groups. | Workshop slides, pages 9–10 |
| Optional PFAS label | A maker may label an element: “upon certification has a PFAS (total fluorine) concentration of no more than 100 ppm.” The label is optional. | Workshop slides, pages 8 and 26 |
| What 100 means | 100 parts per million is 100 milligrams of fluorine per kilogram of material. The test measures total fluorine, not single PFAS. | Workshop slides, page 26 |
| Parts tested | For coats and pants: outer shell, moisture barrier, thermal liner and wristlets. Not tested: leather, reinforcements, reflective trim, labels, thread and hardware. | Workshop slides, page 8 (table) |
| Moisture barrier | Tests were changed so that barriers without film can qualify. | Workshop slides, page 13 |
| Old standard | No new certifications under NFPA 1971 after NFPA 1970 took effect. Twelve months later, makers had to stop labeling products as meeting NFPA 1971. | NFPA amendment TIA 25-1, sections 5.2.3–5.2.5 |
The rule on old labels covers products still under the makers' control (TIA 25-1, section 5.2.5).
A separate standard, NFPA 1850 (2026 edition), covers selecting, cleaning and maintaining the gear. The full text of both standards is sold by the NFPA. We have not read it. This section relies on the NFPA's own pages and on the workshop slides.
In the lawsuits, the NFPA comes up through the makers' statements. The Albuquerque complaint says makers claimed their gear met NFPA 1971, without disclosing its PFAS (paragraph 102(b)). It treats that claim as a warranty (paragraph 157). These are the plaintiffs' claims, not findings.
What records are worth keeping if you work in firefighting?
Records of your gear are easy to lose over a career. The firefighting-foam lawsuits have a form for gear claims. It asks how many sets and pieces you used, with details for each. The same kind of detail may matter in any gear case. It helps to note:
- which gear you wore, by maker and model if you know it
- the years you used each set
- how and where the gear was cleaned
- whether you also worked with firefighting foam, and when
Medical records and blood tests for PFAS are explained on one page: Why keep your own medical records? The foam lawsuits' proof list and how to find a lawyer are here: What should you bring to a lawyer?
Whether a gear-only claim fits your situation is a question for a lawyer. We do not assess individual cases.
Found an error, or have a question?
Found an error? Have a question about something we published? Have a suggestion for a topic, the design, or anything else? Email feedback@tetonintake.com — we read everything. Corrections get priority: if something on this site is wrong, we want it fixed. One limit: we can't advise on individual cases — that's what lawyers, doctors, and other experts are for.