Englander and Vinocur v. Restoration Hardware, Inc.

Citizen enforcers Laurence Vinocur and Peter Englander’s allegations against defendant Restoration Hardware, Inc. (“Restoration Hardware”) in the case Englander, et al. v. Cheyenne Industries, LLC, et al. were resolved on October 7, 2013, when the parties executed a Consent Judgment.  In this matter, Englander and Vinocur filed claims against thirteen furniture companies for Proposition 65 violations, including Restoration Hardware.  They alleged that Restoration Hardware sold upholstered furniture and pads for children and infants with foam padding containing tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (“TDCPP”) and/or tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (“TCEP”) and vinyl shower curtains containing the phthalate chemical di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (“DEHP”) in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard warnings.

As part of the settlement, Restoration Hardware agreed not to sell any covered products in California after March 31, 2014, unless the products contain no more than 25 parts per million each of TDCPP and TCEP and less than 1,000 parts per million of DEHP, DBP, and BBP when analyzed using state or federally approved testing methodologies. Additionally, Restoration Hardware agreed to provide its vendors with the reformulation standards by October 15, 2013, and instruct them to provide products that comply expeditiously.  Products currently existing in Restoration Hardware’s inventory may be sold with Proposition 65 warnings provided.  Should Restoration Hardware provide written certification that all products sold in California after November 1, 2013 qualify as reformulated, Vinocur and Englander agreed to waive a portion of the civil fine.  Additionally, Vinocur and Englander provided a credit for extending reformulation, among other credits available, if Restoration Hardware should provide written certification that all products sold in California also contain no more  than 25 parts per million of tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (“TDBPP”) by March 15, 2014.

The Consent Judgment requires settlement payments of $144,000, divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and compensation to whistleblowers Vinocur and Englander and their counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.