An employer may be responsible for birth defects allegedly caused by its workers’ exposure to toxic chemicals, a state appeals court in Illinois has ruled.
This case involves Marcus Ledeaux and Enrique Daniel Araballo, who each had a parent who worked at a Motorola semiconductor manufacturing facility in Arizona.
Ledeaux’s father worked at the facility from 1980 to 2002. Marcus was born in 1997, and he has been diagnosed with autism, cerebral palsy, a brain disorder and paralysis.
Araballo’s mother worked at the facility in the year prior to his birth in 1985. He was born with a genetic disorder that is associated with the formation of tumors, and he has epilepsy, autism and other health issues.
Ledeaux and Araballo sued Motorola, alleging negligence, parental loss of child consortium, and willful and wanton misconduct.
Suit: Employer neglected duty to prevent birth defects
Ledeaux more specifically said that Motorola did not do enough to protect his father from exposure to toxic chemicals at work. It did not warn his father about the dangers that the workplace chemicals posed to his reproductive health, he added, and did not provide him with adequate personal protective equipment.
He also said Motorola actively concealed the level of his father’s exposure and told him that it posed no issues with respect to reproduction.
Araballo raised substantially similar allegations.
Did employer take sufficient steps?
Motorola did take some safety measures with regard to its workers. For example, it provided latex gloves and other protective equipment, and it monitored chemical exposure. It also developed maternity notification forms for physicians and offered access to material safety data sheets.
Araballo’s mother wore something called a “bunny suit,” which consisted of a hood, gown, special shoes and gloves.
All that was not enough, Ledeaux and Araballo alleged.
Ledeaux produced an expert who said warning bells sounded as early as the 1970s, when scientific studies linked exposure to birth defects. The expert said Motorola should have done more to warn and protect its workers.
Motorola responded with a conflicting 1989 study that said such a correlation does not exist.
There was also a history of notifications to Motorola about reproductive hazards posed by chemicals used during semiconductor manufacturing. For example, DuPont told Motorola in 1981 about reproductive toxicity of certain glycol ethers that were used. Also in 1981, material safety data sheets warned of birth defects in animals that were caused by glycol ethers.
Motorola did not eliminate glycol ethers from the manufacturing process until 1994.
Lower court’s ruling is reversed
A lower court ruled for Motorola, finding it did not owe the plaintiffs a duty under applicable state law.
Ledeaux and Araballo filed an appeal.
A state intermediate appeals court reversed the lower court’s ruling and revived the claims that were raised.
It said a question of fact exists on the question of whether, by developing a reproductive health policy, Motorola undertook a duty to exercise reasonable care with respect to it.
The plaintiffs alleged that the employer’s attempts to develop the policy were “incomplete, confusing and ineffective.”
The court said that in light of the conflicting evidence, a trier of fact must resolve the question of whether the workers’ exposure to the chemicals increased their risk of having offspring with birth defects. A question also exists as to whether the exposure actually and proximately caused the birth defects.
The court reversed the lower court’s order with respect to both Ledeaux and Araballo, and it remanded the case for further proceedings. It also allowed both plaintiffs to add claims for punitive damages.
Ledeaux v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 1-22-0981 (Ill. App. Ct. 2/29/24).
