Vinocur v. CORT Business Services Corporation

The parties involved in the case Vinocur v. CORT Business Services Corporation executed a Consent Judgment on May 14, 2015.  In this matter, citizen enforcer Laurence Vinocur alleged that CORT Business Services Corporation (“CORT”) sold upholstered furniture with foam padding containing tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (“TDCPP”) in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard warnings.  

As part of the agreement, CORT agreed not to sell any upholstered furniture with foam padding in California after the Alameda County Superior Court approves the Judgment, unless the furniture contains no more than 25 parts per million of TDCPP, tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (“TCEP”), or tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate (“TDBPP”) when analyzed using state or federally approved testing methodologies.  Existing inventory that CORT has reason to believe does not meet the reformulation requirements shall be sold with Proposition 65 warnings provided.  Should CORT provide written certification that all upholstered furniture with foam padding sold in California qualify as reformulated by June 1, 2015, Vinocur agreed to waive a portion of the civil fine that would otherwise be applied.

The Consent Judgment required settlement payments of $65,000, divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and compensation to whistleblower Vinocur and his counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.