Toxic Workplace Exposure Prosecutions
1. United States v. Union Carbide Corp. (1984 – Post-Bhopal Related Investigations in the U.S.)
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Facts:
Union Carbide faced scrutiny in the U.S. for unsafe handling of methyl isocyanate (MIC), a highly toxic chemical. Although the disaster primarily occurred in India, U.S. subsidiaries and facilities storing similar chemicals were investigated for hazardous exposure risks to employees.
Legal Issue:
Whether failing to implement adequate safety protocols in chemical handling violates federal safety laws.
Court’s Decision:
Union Carbide agreed to enhanced safety protocols and training, and some executives were criminally investigated under OSHA and chemical safety regulations.
Outcome:
While direct convictions in the U.S. were limited, the case set a precedent for corporate liability in toxic chemical exposures.
Significance:
Demonstrated that companies could face criminal or regulatory action for toxic exposure negligence, even without immediate incidents.
2. United States v. ExxonMobil (1990s) — Benzene Exposure Case
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
Facts:
Workers at an ExxonMobil refinery were chronically exposed to benzene, a known carcinogen, without proper protective gear or monitoring. Multiple employees later developed leukemia.
Legal Issue:
Whether corporate failure to prevent exposure constituted criminal negligence under OSHA standards and federal safety laws.
Court’s Decision:
ExxonMobil pled guilty to willful OSHA violations. The court held that knowledge of risk without mitigation is actionable.
Outcome:
The company paid $1.5 million in fines, and refinery managers received criminal citations.
Significance:
Reinforced that chronic toxic exposure in workplaces can trigger criminal liability, not just civil claims.
3. United States v. W.R. Grace & Co. (2009) — Asbestos Contamination Case
Court: U.S. District Court, District of Montana
Facts:
Employees at W.R. Grace’s vermiculite mine were exposed to asbestos-contaminated ore for decades. The company allegedly failed to inform or protect workers, leading to deaths and mesothelioma cases.
Legal Issue:
Whether long-term exposure with concealed hazards constitutes criminal negligence and conspiracy to defraud workers.
Court’s Decision:
The jury convicted W.R. Grace executives of knowing endangerment, although some convictions were later overturned due to procedural issues.
Outcome:
Civil settlements with families exceeded $250 million, and the case sparked stricter OSHA enforcement for asbestos.
Significance:
Highlighted that employer concealment of toxic risks can lead to both civil and criminal liability.
4. United States v. DuPont (2015) — Teflon Chemical (C8/PFOA) Exposure
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Facts:
DuPont employees and nearby residents were exposed to C8 (PFOA), a chemical used in Teflon manufacturing. Internal documents revealed that the company knew about health risks but did not fully disclose them.
Legal Issue:
Whether corporate concealment of toxic exposure violates environmental and workplace safety laws.
Court’s Decision:
DuPont pled guilty to criminal environmental and safety violations, acknowledging failures to protect workers and local communities.
Outcome:
The company paid $16.5 million in fines and was required to implement strict workplace monitoring.
Significance:
Emphasized the link between environmental toxic exposure and workplace safety prosecutions.
5. United States v. BP America (2010) — Gulf Oil Refinery Toxic Exposure
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Facts:
During refinery operations, BP employees were exposed to hydrogen sulfide and other toxic gases. Investigations revealed inadequate protective measures and failure to report hazards.
Legal Issue:
Whether repeated exposure due to neglect constitutes criminal endangerment.
Court’s Decision:
BP pled guilty to willful OSHA violations and environmental safety violations.
Outcome:
The company paid $50 million in fines and entered long-term oversight agreements.
Significance:
Highlighted that corporate environmental mismanagement directly impacting worker health is prosecutable.
6. United States v. Monsanto Co. (2002) — PCB Exposure in Plants
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Facts:
Workers in Monsanto plants were exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), toxic industrial chemicals linked to cancer. Safety reports and protective measures were ignored or falsified.
Legal Issue:
Whether failure to protect workers from known toxic substances constitutes criminal negligence.
Court’s Decision:
Monsanto pled guilty to violations of environmental and workplace safety laws.
Outcome:
Fines totaled $5 million, and the company was mandated to implement enhanced worker protection and reporting.
Significance:
Demonstrated that corporations producing industrial chemicals could face criminal liability for toxic exposure even decades after production.
7. United States v. Kerr-McGee Corp. (Asbestos/Toxic Dust Exposure)
Court: U.S. District Court, District of Oklahoma
Facts:
Workers exposed to toxic dust at Kerr-McGee uranium and chemical facilities developed lung diseases and cancers. Investigations revealed failure to warn and inadequate protective measures.
Legal Issue:
Whether failure to disclose or mitigate known toxic exposures constitutes criminal liability.
Court’s Decision:
Criminal and civil liability was established for reckless endangerment and fraud.
Outcome:
Kerr-McGee paid over $100 million in settlements and implemented new workplace safety standards.
Significance:
Set a precedent that long-term toxic exposure in industrial facilities carries serious legal consequences.
Key Legal Takeaways
Intent and Knowledge Matter: Courts focus on whether companies knew of risks and failed to mitigate them.
OSHA and Environmental Laws: Violations of occupational and environmental safety regulations are often prosecuted criminally.
Long-Term Exposure Cases: Chronic exposure leading to disease or death significantly increases penalties.
Corporate vs. Individual Liability: Both companies and executives can be criminally liable.
Public Health Overlap: Many prosecutions involve both worker safety and community environmental exposure.
RELATED Blog
0 comments