Vinocur v. Fairfield Processing Corp.

Whistleblower Laurence Vinocur resolved his allegations against defendant Fairfield Processing Corporation (“Fairfield”) and retailer Michaels Stores, Inc. in the matter of Vinocur v. Ace Bayou Corp., et al., when the parties executed a Consent Judgment on October 15, 2014.  In this enforcement action, Vinocur alleged that Fairfield sold foam cushioned products containing the flame retardant tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (“TDCPP”) in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard warnings. 

As part of the settlement, Fairfield agreed not to sell any foam products in California after March 31, 2014, unless the products contain no detectable amount of TDCPP when analyzed using state or federally approved testing methodologies.  Products already existing in inventory must be sold with Proposition 65 warnings provided.  Additionally, Fairfield agreed to provide its vendors with the reformulation standards and instruct them to provide products that comply expeditiously.  Vinocur provided a credit for extending the breadth of reformulation, among other credits available, if Fairfield should provide written certification that all products sold in California after January 1, 2015, contain no detectable amounts of tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate (“TDBPP”), in addition to satisfying the TDCPP requirement.

The Consent Judgment requires a total settlement payment of $115,000, divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and compensation to citizen enforcer Vinocur and his counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.