DiPirro v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al.

The parties involved in DiPirro v. Sherwin-Williams Company., et al., executed a Consent Judgment on December 7, 2001, which resolved citizen enforcer Michael DiPirro's allegations that the defendant Sherwin-Williams Company ("Sherwin-Williams") sold cutting oils containing mineral oil in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard warnings.

As part of the settlement, Sherwin-Williams agreed not to sell any cutting oils in California after October 31, 2002, unless the oil has Proposition 65 warnings provided.

The Consent Judgment requires settlement payments of $1,000, to be divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and compensation to whistleblower DiPirro and his counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.