As You Sow v. Spies Hecker, Inc., et al.

Proposition 65 private enforcer and whistleblower, As You Sow, and paint, coatings and adhesives manufacturer, Spies Hecker, Inc. ("SHI"), entered a settlement agreement on May 1, 1995, that resolved AYS' claims that SHI violated Proposition 65 when it failed to warn consumers and other individuals in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to the Proposition 65-listed chemicals, including lead, chromium (hexavalent compounds), toluene, and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), in certain paints and adhesives sold in California. Toluene and lead are each listed pursuant to Proposition 65 as a chemical known to cause reproductive harm or birth defects. Chromium and DEHP are each listed pursuant to the Act as a chemical that is known to cause cancer.

On October 28, 1994, AYS served SHI with a 60-day notice of violation of Proposition 65, alleging unwarned exposures to toluene in its products. On March 10, 1995, after no public enforcer elected to prosecute the violations alleged in the notice, AYS filed As You Sow v. Spies Hecker, Inc., et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 748606-3, naming SHI as a defendant. Thereafter, on April 5, 1995, AYS served SHI with a second 60-day notice of violation of Proposition 65, alleging unwarned exposures to lead and chromium from products identified by AYS that SHI sold in California without warning.

Under the terms of the settlement, SHI provided specific health hazard warnings regarding the reproductive toxicity or carcinogenic risk associated with exposures to the particular Proposition 65-litsed chemical(s) in a given product. The agreement also required that SHI revise the MSDS included with each of the products to include the specific health hazard warning information required for the products. SHI also made settlement payments totaling $5,850. A portion of the payment to AYS was distributed to the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. The payment also included a cost component to reimburse AYS for the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred investigating, bringing the matter to SHI's attention, and negotiating a settlement of the private enforcement action in the public interest.