Volume 8 | For week ending 6 September 2025
Table of Contents
- Aboriginal and Indigenous Rights
- Air Pollution and Emissions
- Ecology and Natural Resources Damage
-
Employee DEI
- Execs Allege Racial and Gender Discrimination Against Agency Horizon in Federal Lawsuit
- Disney Sued for Pay Discrimination by Former Top Lawyer
- Walmart ‘wrongfully’ terminated disabled Christian vet after he reported sexual harassment from trans colleague in men’s restroom: lawsuit
- East Jordan Plastics to pay $460K to settle EEOC sexual harassment lawsuit
- Huntington Beach Ford’s Dark Side: Expanded Lawsuit Reveals Widespread Harassment and Abuse
- Tesla HR Execs File Wrongful Termination and Retaliation Lawsuit
- Sam’s Club to Pay $60K Over Disability Discrimination
- Nike, former employees ask judge to intervene in stalled sex discrimination case
-
Governance
- US appeals court voids Biden-era electric vehicle fuel economy rule
- City slapped with class action water suit
- Benson sued over permitting process for aluminum recycling plant
- Federal Lawsuit Cites Elk River Spill In Bid To Force EPA Action
- Tesla faces lawsuit over greenwashing and unfair supply chain practices
- NGT slaps ₹1.7 crore fine on Pune builder for illegal construction
- New suit alleges state discriminated against Jackson in distribution of ARPA funds, allowed water system to collapse
- Waste Management
-
Water and Hydrogeology
- Violation of natural justice principles and due process: Punjab and Haryana HC sets aside ₹2 crore penalty on Gurgaon developer BPTP
- PennEnvironment, Three Rivers Waterkeeper settle plastic pollution lawsuit against Styropek USA
- A judge dismissed the James M. Gavin power plant’s lawsuit challenging EPA rules on toxic waste disposal
Aboriginal and Indigenous Rights
B.C. to contest lawsuit by U.S.-based tribes over consultation rights in Canada
| Date | 2025-09-04 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Nelson, British Columbia (province-wide implications) (Canada) |
| ESG Category | Aboriginal and Indigenous Rights |
| Plaintiffs | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) — U.S.-based tribal government representing Sinixt members asserting section 35 rights in Canada. (Sinixt) |
| Defendants | Province of British Columbia (Government of B.C.) — alleged discriminatory consultation/education policies. (CityNews Halifax) |
| Status | Newly filed constitutional challenges (September 3, 2025) against B.C. consultation “notification” policy and School Act framework; Province says it will contest; court and docket not stated in reporting. (Sinixt, CityNews Halifax) |
| Overview | British Columbia Premier David Eby said the province will fight two constitutional challenges filed by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Sinixt) alleging discrimination in B.C.’s approach to Indigenous consultation and education. The Sinixt say B.C. downgraded their engagement to mere “notification,” and excluded them from Indigenous Education Councils—contrary to the 2021 Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Desautel recognizing the Sinixt as an Aboriginal people of Canada. The Syilx Okanagan Nation supports B.C.’s prioritization of Canada-based First Nations. The Sinixt actions seek court declarations that B.C.’s policies and School Act framework violate s.35 and Charter s.15. (CityNews Halifax, Sinixt, Global News) |
| Why it matters | These filings squarely test how cross-border Indigenous rights recognized in Desautel translate into the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate on land and resource decisions—and into Indigenous participation in education governance. Expert witnesses should anticipate disputes over who holds representational authority for Sinixt interests in Canada, what constitutes adequate consultation for U.S.-resident rights holders, and how to operationalize notification vs. consultation in regulatory processes. Expect demand for experts on Indigenous governance, consultation protocols, UNDRIP/DRIPA implementation, ethnohistory of the Sinixt, and education-policy design to assess potential discriminatory effects. (Sinixt, CityNews Halifax) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Halifax CityNews, Sinixt Confederacy – News Release, Global News |
Cree Nation amps up fight against Manitoba Hydro
| Date | 2025-08-29 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | York Landing / Split Lake, Manitoba (Canada) |
| ESG Category | Aboriginal and Indigenous Rights |
| Plaintiffs | York Factory First Nation (Chief Darryl Wastesicoot, on behalf of the community) — remote northern Cree Nation whose ferry service was halted by low water. (APTN News) |
| Defendants | Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board (Manitoba Hydro); Government of Manitoba; Attorney General of Canada. (APTN News) |
| Status | Newly filed (statement of claim dated Aug. 28, 2025); interlocutory/urgent injunction sought; Hydro indicates it will respond (20-day window to file a defence under Manitoba rules). (APTN News) |
| Overview | York Factory First Nation (YFFN) filed a statement of claim in Manitoba’s Court of King’s Bench seeking an injunction compelling Manitoba Hydro to raise Split Lake water levels so the community’s ferry can operate. The suit alleges Hydro “intentionally, willfully and callously” managed levels for economic purposes, infringing Aboriginal and treaty rights and endangering residents. Relief sought includes emergency transport funding, dredging, relocation of the ferry dock, ferry replacement/upgrade, and an all-season road. Manitoba Hydro attributes low levels to persistent drought and says it is assisting YFFN with boats and docks while it prepares a response. (APTN News, hydro.mb.ca) |
| Why it matters | This case tests whether operational water-management decisions by a Crown utility can be judicially constrained to protect community access, safety, and treaty rights—on an urgent (injunctive) basis. Expert witnesses will be key on reservoir operations and hydrology (what Hydro can release and with what downstream effects), drought/flow modeling, ferry draft/berthing requirements and dredging feasibility, logistics for essential services to remote communities, and the interface between asserted s. 35 rights/Charter s. 7 harms and engineering constraints. Expect demand for experts who can rapidly evaluate practicable lake-level options, safety risks from low water, and the costs/benefits of interim transport measures. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | APTN News, Yahoo Canada (CBC rehost), NationTalk (CBC syndication), Manitoba Hydro — News Release |
Air Pollution and Emissions
Updated air emissions rule for incinerators faces lawsuit
| Date | 2025-09-03 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Washington, D.C. (United States) |
| ESG Category | Air Pollution and Emissions |
| Plaintiffs | Sierra Club; California Communities Against Toxics — nonprofit environmental organizations challenging the OSWI rule. |
| Defendants | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Administrator (official capacity) — agency that promulgated the OSWI rule. |
| Status | Petition for review filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (filed late in the week ending August 29, 2025) challenging EPA’s June 30, 2025 OSWI final rule; early appellate stage. |
| Overview | Two environmental groups filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit challenging EPA’s recently finalized standards for “other solid waste incinerators” (OSWI)—units used by institutions such as prisons and nursing homes. The petition targets the June 2025 rulemaking that revised performance standards and emission guidelines after years of delay, arguing that carve-outs and definitional changes undercut public-health protections. The filing, brought on behalf of the groups by public-interest counsel, follows earlier comments criticizing the draft rule. The case opens a new front over how far the agency may go in tailoring OSWI requirements for small or institution-based trash-burning operations. |
| Why it matters | Expert witnesses should anticipate disputes over subcategorization, applicability thresholds, and whether revised limits and monitoring regimes sufficiently protect nearby communities. Opinions may be needed on OSWI technology baselines, achievable controls (e.g., dioxins/furans, PM, HCl, NOx, CO, SO₂), startup/shutdown/malfunction provisions, stack testing/CEMS methods, and health‐risk implications. Because the case is an APA/CAA petition, experts in regulatory design, cost and feasibility, and environmental justice screening will be valuable to evaluate the record and potential remedies on remand. Facility-level engineers and emissions modelers may also be engaged to assess real-world impacts across institutional sites. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | E&E News by POLITICO, Federal Register — Final OSWI Rule, EPA — OSWI Final Rule Fact Sheet, Inside EPA (summary) |
Paper mill settles $5M lawsuit with Kalamazoo residents over toxic stink
| Date | 2025-09-03 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Kalamazoo, Michigan (Northside neighborhood) (United States) |
| ESG Category | Air Pollution and Emissions |
| Plaintiffs | Brandi Crawford-Johnson; James King; Kevin Fannin; Cejuwon McFerrin — residents living near the Kalamazoo mill (named plaintiffs in 2020 suit). (Justia Dockets & Filings) |
| Defendants | Graphic Packaging International, LLC — paperboard/paper mill operator at 1500 N. Pitcher St., Kalamazoo. |
| Status | Settled; case dismissed with prejudice on Aug. 26, 2025, per order on stipulation in W.D. Michigan (Case No. 1:20-cv-00842). Media reporting places the settlement value at $5 million; docket does not list terms. (Pacermonitor, Law360, Daily Kalamazoo) |
| Overview | After nearly five years of litigation over noxious odors and dust from Graphic Packaging International’s Kalamazoo paper mill, the parties have reached a settlement reported at $5 million. Court records in the 2020 nuisance/negligence case (Crawford-Johnson et al. v. GPI) show a stipulation of dismissal filed Aug. 22, 2025, and an order granting dismissal on Aug. 26, 2025, by Judge Robert J. Jonker. Local coverage frames the deal as ending a long-running dispute over “toxic stink” affecting Northside residents. Specific settlement terms beyond the reported amount were not disclosed in the docket. (Daily Kalamazoo, Pacermonitor, Law360) |
| Why it matters | Odor nuisance suits hinge on linking emissions (e.g., hydrogen sulfide) to community impacts and property damages. This outcome underscores the evidentiary value of continuous H₂S monitoring, complaint logs, EGLE notices of violation, source attribution between industrial and municipal units, and damages modeling for loss of use/enjoyment. For expert witnesses, expect demand for air dispersion and odor science, exposure and symptom correlation, and valuation experts to quantify property and quality-of-life harms. The docketed dismissal also illustrates how negotiated resolutions can follow contested class issues and years of motion practice. (Packaging Dive) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | MLive, PacerMonitor – Crawford-Johnson et al. v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, 1:20-cv-00842 (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/36088227/CrawfordJohnson_et_al_v_Graphic_Packaging_International, _LLC), Law360 – Mich. Paper Mill Settles Noxious Odor Suit, Daily Kalamazoo (MLive summary) |
Judge allows state’s lawsuit against Prestige Feed Products to move ahead
| Date | 2025-09-02 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Mount Prospect, Illinois (United States) |
| ESG Category | Air Pollution and Emissions |
| Plaintiffs | People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Attorney General Kwame Raoul — brings civil environmental enforcement for alleged air and noise pollution. (illinoisattorneygeneral.gov) |
| Defendants | Prestige Feed Products LLC — animal-feed manufacturer alleged to emit noxious odors and excessive noise from its Mount Prospect facility. |
| Status | Motion to dismiss denied on September 2, 2025; state air- and noise-pollution counts proceed. Next court date October 7, 2025. Related: municipal suits settled in June 2025 (plant to cease operations by year-end); separate class action by neighbors continues. Case No. 2025CH02892 (Cook County Circuit Court). (Daily Herald, journal-topics.com) |
| Overview | A Cook County judge denied Prestige Feed Products’ motion to dismiss the Illinois attorney general’s civil enforcement suit over alleged odor and noise pollution at the company’s Mount Prospect facility. The state cites more than 1,000 complaints from nearly 150 residents describing “burnt cheese” odors and persistent nighttime noise. At hearing, Prestige’s counsel argued the state must prove exceedances of numeric odor and noise standards; the AG countered that Illinois law also covers unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of property. The court found the state pleaded sufficient facts for air- and noise-pollution claims to proceed. A further court date is set for Oct. 7. (Daily Herald) |
| Why it matters | For environmental expert witnesses, this case spotlights nuisance-based air and noise claims where community impacts and qualitative evidence (resident logs, agency observations) may carry as much weight as numeric thresholds. Expect demand for odor scientists (olfactometry, butyric acid markers), air-quality engineers, and acoustical experts to assess sources, pathways and feasible controls. Evidence from Illinois EPA observers is anticipated, raising issues around field methods and reliability. Prior municipal settlements requiring the plant’s exit by year-end, and a parallel resident class action, add context on remedy and damages. Experts in industrial process engineering and best available control technologies for animal feed dehydration will be relevant. (Daily Herald, journal-topics.com) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Daily Herald, Illinois Attorney General — News Release, Illinois AG — Complaint PDF, Daily Herald — Municipal settlements |
Ecology and Natural Resources Damage
US files lawsuit against California utility over Los Angeles wildfires
| Date | 2025-09-04 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Altadena/Pasadena (Los Angeles County) & Hemet (Riverside County), California (United States) |
| ESG Category | Ecology and Natural Resources Damage |
| Plaintiffs | United States of America (seeking cost recovery for suppression, rehab, and environmental damages on federal lands) |
| Defendants | Southern California Edison Co. — investor-owned electric utility serving Southern California |
| Status | Newly filed (September 4, 2025) in U.S. District Court, Central District of California: United States v. SCE (Eaton Fire) and United States v. SCE (Fairview Fire). Reported case numbers: 2:25-cv-08357 (Eaton) and 2:25-cv-08356 (Fairview); both pending. (Courthouse News, Insurance Journal) |
| Overview | The U.S. Department of Justice filed two federal lawsuits against Southern California Edison (SCE), alleging negligence that sparked the deadly Eaton Fire near Los Angeles in January 2025 and the Fairview Fire in September 2022. DOJ seeks “tens of millions” in cost recovery for fire suppression, rehabilitation of National Forest lands, and environmental damages (about $40M for Eaton; ~$37M for Fairview). Prosecutors cite SCE’s detected transmission-line fault around the Eaton ignition time and inadequate line maintenance/clearance involving a Frontier messenger cable in the Fairview Fire. Cases were filed in the Central District of California. (Justice, AP News, Reuters) |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, these filings showcase how federal cost-recovery claims hinge on precise ignition analysis and quantification of resource injury on federal lands. Expect heavy reliance on origin-and-cause reconstruction, powerline failure forensics (conductor contact, fault data, protective relays), vegetation-clearance compliance, weather and wind modeling, burn severity mapping, and BAER-style restoration cost estimates. The complaints also highlight California statutory claims (e.g., fire trespass and cost recovery) applied alongside negligence, setting expectations for technical evidence on grid hardening, clearance measurements, and post-fire watershed impacts. (Courthouse News, Justice) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Al Jazeera, U.S. Department of Justice – Central District of California (press release), AP News, Reuters, Insurance Journal |
Zug Cantonal Court deliberates on lawsuit against Holcim for climate damage
| Date | 2025-09-03 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Zug, Canton of Zug (Switzerland); Pulau Pari, DKI Jakarta (Indonesia) (Switzerland) |
| ESG Category | Ecology and Natural Resources Damage |
| Plaintiffs | Ibu Asmania; Arif Pujianto; Edi Mulyono; Pak Bobby — residents/fishers from Pari Island alleging climate-related harm. |
| Defendants | Holcim Ltd — Switzerland-based cement manufacturer. |
| Status | Hearing on admissibility held Sept. 3, 2025; no ruling issued yet—court to decide in writing. Prior interim step: legal aid granted to plaintiffs in Oct. 2023. |
| Overview | The Cantonal Court of Zug held a first hearing to decide whether a civil action by four residents of Indonesia’s Pari Island against Holcim can proceed. The plaintiffs seek CHF 3,600 each for local protection measures and demand deeper emission cuts by 2040, arguing Holcim’s historical share of global industrial CO₂ (~0.42%) has contributed to sea-level rise and flooding on Pari. Holcim counters that CO₂ limits are for legislators, not civil courts, and points to >50% emission reductions since 2015. The court took the admissibility matter under advisement; a written decision will follow. |
| Why it matters | This is poised to be Switzerland’s first corporate climate-damage case to test whether a company’s global emissions can trigger Swiss tort and personality-rights remedies. Expert witnesses should expect scrutiny of climate attribution (fraction of attributable risk), sea-level rise projections for small islands, and quantification of site-specific adaptation costs. On the corporate side, experts in carbon accounting, “carbon majors” apportionment, and evaluation of decarbonization targets/pathways will be central. Procedurally, specialists may be asked to opine on Swiss admissibility standards and whether plaintiffs demonstrate a concrete, protectable interest for civil relief. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | blue News, SWI swissinfo.ch, Reuters, HEKS/EPER – Main hearing notice, ECCHR – Press release |
Jaguar Mining Resolves All Pending Legal Matters Tied to Satinoco Incident, Bolstering Outlook
| Date | 2025-09-03 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Conceição do Pará, Minas Gerais (Brazil) |
| ESG Category | Ecology and Natural Resources Damage |
| Plaintiffs | Public Prosecutor’s Office of Minas Gerais (MPMG) — brought Public Civil Lawsuit over the Satinoco incident; (related agreements with SEMAD and Public Defender’s Office of Minas Gerais). |
| Defendants | Jaguar Mining Inc.; Mineração Serras do Oeste Ltda. — operator/owner of the Turmalina/MTL complex in Minas Gerais. |
| Status | Resolved. Public Civil Lawsuit settled for R$40M (installments), environmental fine reduced to R$60M with long-term payment plan, and ~R$58M community compensation agreement; company states all known Satinoco-related legal matters are concluded. |
| Overview | Jaguar Mining announced a comprehensive resolution of legal and administrative actions stemming from the December 2024 slump at its Satinoco dry-stacked pile near the Turmalina mine. The company reached a final agreement to settle a Public Civil Lawsuit with Brazil’s Public Prosecutor’s Office for R$40 million, with installments structured to preserve liquidity. Previously concluded matters include a reduction of the state environmental fine to R$60 million and an agreement with the Public Defender’s Office providing ~R$58 million for community compensation. Jaguar says the package removes major contingencies, clarifies operating conditions and supports a phased restart path at the MTL complex. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this is a case study in tailings/rock-pile slope failure risk, Brazilian environmental enforcement, and community compensation structures. The settlement mix (civil action, administrative fine, and mediated community claims) highlights where experts add value: geotechnical root-cause analysis, safety audits for restart, hydrology and run-off pathways, impact assessment, and valuation of household- and community-level damages. It also spotlights governance controls—independent audits, monitoring, and installment scheduling—relevant to opinions on proportionality and feasibility. Practitioners should note evolving expectations of SEMAD/MPMG/DPE-MG and how technical findings translate into negotiated outcomes and injunctive obligations during mine restarts. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Jaguar Mining — News Release PDF, Jaguar Mining — News Releases index, Nasdaq Press Release — Fine Reduction, Junior Mining Network — Community Compensation Agreement, Mining.com — Fine reduction context |
Employee DEI
Execs Allege Racial and Gender Discrimination Against Agency Horizon in Federal Lawsuit
| Date | 2025-09-05 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | New York, New York (United States) |
| ESG Category | Employee DEI |
| Plaintiffs | Latraviette Smith-Wilson — former C-suite marketing and equity leader; Charisma Deberry — current VP of strategic communications and engagement. |
| Defendants | Horizon Media Holdings LLC; Horizon Media LLC — media buying/advertising agency entities. |
| Status | Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 4, 2025 (Case No. 1:25-cv-07331). Early stage; plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. |
| Overview | A federal complaint filed in the Southern District of New York alleges that Horizon Media fostered a hostile work environment marked by race- and gender-based bias and retaliation. Plaintiffs Latraviette Smith-Wilson, a former chief marketing and equity officer, and Charisma Deberry, a current vice president of strategic communications, contend senior executives targeted them with demeaning comments, excluded them from key meetings, and withheld resources. They seek monetary and punitive damages and non-monetary remedies to change company practices. The filing also references internal culture and DEI surveys that leadership allegedly criticized or undermined, as well as comments the plaintiffs say sexualized or diminished their roles. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this case spotlights hot-button employment-law issues at modern agencies: evaluation of alleged disparate treatment, retaliation causation, and the credibility of internal climate and DEI survey evidence. Labor economists may be asked to quantify damages and assess comparators; industrial-organizational psychologists to analyze culture, stereotyping, and hostile-work-environment claims; HR/DEI policy experts to examine complaint handling, resourcing decisions, and the interactive process for addressing bias allegations; and survey methodologists to evaluate design, benchmarks, and validity of culture surveys. Expect scrutiny of leadership communications, meeting access, and budget allocations, plus potential Daubert challenges to survey and statistical methods. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Adweek, PACERMonitor, Vladeck, Raskin & Clark — Anne Clark bio |
Disney Sued for Pay Discrimination by Former Top Lawyer
| Date | 2025-09-03 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Los Angeles, California (United States) |
| ESG Category | Employee DEI |
| Plaintiffs | Alisa Clairet — former senior legal executive in Disney Channel’s legal affairs group. |
| Defendants | The Walt Disney Company — global media and entertainment conglomerate. |
| Status | Filed August 15, 2025 in Los Angeles County Superior Court; early stage with no trial date reported. |
| Overview | A former senior legal executive in Disney’s television legal affairs group, Alisa Clairet, has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging long-running pay inequity compared with a male counterpart hired at the same time into a higher-titled, better-paid role. The complaint says leadership acknowledged the disparity but failed to adjust compensation; it also alleges she consistently outperformed the comparator and still earned less, before being laid off in October 2024 while the male colleague remained. Claims include violations of California’s Equal Pay Act, FEHA sex discrimination and retaliation, unfair competition, and related labor code causes of action. |
| Why it matters | Expert witnesses will likely be central on multiple fronts: labor economists to run pay-equity regressions and comparator analyses; HR compensation and corporate governance experts to assess job architecture, title inflation, and how the interactive pay-setting process worked; and industrial-organizational psychologists to evaluate culture, performance evaluation systems, and retaliation theories. Expect Daubert challenges around model specification (controls, tenure, job family leveling) and admissibility of internal HR data. If the case advances, damages experts may model back/front pay and injunctive relief designs (audits, pay-equity remediation protocols) that often become part of settlements in California equal pay litigation. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | ICLG, MyNewsLA, The Hollywood Reporter — post referencing the article |
Walmart ‘wrongfully’ terminated disabled Christian vet after he reported sexual harassment from trans colleague in men’s restroom: lawsuit
| Date | 2025-09-03 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Woodland Park, Colorado (Teller County) (United States) |
| ESG Category | Employee DEI |
| Plaintiffs | Joseph Allen — disabled Army veteran; former Walmart associate at Store #3805 (Woodland Park) (PacerMonitor) |
| Defendants | Walmart, Inc. — national retail corporation |
| Status | Newly filed and pending (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado). Case No. 1:25-cv-02702-MDB, complaint filed August 28, 2025. (PacerMonitor) |
| Overview | Joseph Allen, a disabled Army veteran and former associate at Walmart Store #3805 in Woodland Park, Colorado, filed a federal complaint on August 28, 2025 (D. Colo. 1:25-cv-02702-MDB). He alleges Walmart failed to accommodate his religious beliefs and disabilities (PTSD/TBI with IBS), ignored his sexual-harassment reports involving two transgender colleagues, and retaliated by terminating him in February 2024. Claims include Title VII religious discrimination/retaliation, ADA discrimination/failure to accommodate, and Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act violations. The complaint describes restroom-related incidents and requests for alternative arrangements that were allegedly not addressed. (The Post Millennial, PacerMonitor) |
| Why it matters | Expert witnesses may be pivotal on whether Walmart satisfied its Title VII religious-accommodation duties and ADA interactive-process obligations while enforcing gender-identity restroom policies. Expect needs for HR investigations and workplace-standards experts, ADA accommodation specialists (bathroom access/proximity for IBS), industrial/organizational psychologists on retaliation/hostile-work-environment evidence, and security/facilities professionals on practical restroom alternatives. The case also spotlights how contemporaneous documentation (complaints, investigation notes, schedule/assignment records, restroom policy communications) can determine credibility and causation in mixed ADA/Title VII disputes. (PacerMonitor) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | The Post Millennial, PacerMonitor – Case page, PacerMonitor – Complaint PDF |
East Jordan Plastics to pay $460K to settle EEOC sexual harassment lawsuit
| Date | 2025-09-03 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Beaverton, Michigan (United States) |
| ESG Category | Employee DEI |
| Plaintiffs | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — federal civil rights agency that investigates and litigates employment discrimination |
| Defendants | East Jordan Plastics, Inc. — manufacturer of plastic horticultural containers |
| Status | Settled via court-entered consent decree on September 3, 2025; three-year decree with injunctive obligations. Case No. 2:25-cv-12302 (E.D. Michigan). (EEOC) |
| Overview | East Jordan Plastics, a Michigan maker of horticultural containers, agreed to pay $460,000 and submit to a three-year consent decree to resolve an EEOC sexual harassment lawsuit. The EEOC alleged a class of female production workers at the company’s Beaverton plant faced offensive sexual comments and unwanted touching by a male co-worker; despite at least two complaints, the company allegedly failed to act until a later complaint prompted interviews and termination. The decree requires anti-harassment training, annual reporting to the EEOC on any sex-harassment complaints, and workplace postings about employee rights. Case No. 2:25-cv-12302 (E.D. Mich.). (EEOC) |
| Why it matters | Consent decrees like this set concrete compliance obligations beyond a check: documented training, complaint handling, monitoring, and notice to employees. For expert witnesses, that means potential engagements auditing policy design and implementation, evaluating the adequacy and timeliness of investigations, assessing supervisor training and corrective action, and validating decree compliance metrics reported to the EEOC. Cases often turn on contemporaneous records (complaints, interviews, discipline) and whether responses meet Title VII standards for prompt, effective remedial action in industrial settings with shift work. (EEOC) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, Plastics News, CourtListener Docket |
Huntington Beach Ford’s Dark Side: Expanded Lawsuit Reveals Widespread Harassment and Abuse
| Date | 2025-09-03 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Huntington Beach, California (United States) |
| ESG Category | Employee DEI |
| Plaintiffs | Multiple current and former employees and certain vendors (names not disclosed) alleging harassment, abuse, hostile environment, and retaliation. |
| Defendants | Huntington Beach Ford — automotive dealership; Bakhtiari Automotive Group — parent dealership group. |
| Status | Expanded civil complaint filed; early stage. Press release cites Case No. 202401-23370524 (civil) and a related WCAB matter ADJ18208335; damages sought include emotional distress, lost wages, and punitive damages. |
| Overview | A press release states that an expanded civil lawsuit has been filed against Huntington Beach Ford, owned by Bakhtiari Automotive Group, alleging a pervasive pattern of sexual harassment, public verbal abuse, hostile work environment, and related wrongful terminations. The filing, brought by attorney Michael Yadegari of L.A. Law Group, asserts that additional current and former employees—and some vendors—have come forward since the initial case, further implicating the store’s current general manager. Plaintiffs seek damages for emotional distress, lost wages, and punitive damages. The release also references related workers’ compensation matters tied to alleged retaliatory terminations. |
| Why it matters | Expert witnesses should note likely needs around workplace climate assessment, HR investigations, and damages. Cases alleging harassment and hostile environment often hinge on expert analysis of complaint-handling protocols, adequacy of training, reasonableness of corrective actions, and credibility of corroborating evidence (texts, schedules, CCTV, customer/vendor statements). Vocational and economic experts may quantify back pay/front pay and mitigation. When vendors are involved, issues of third-party harassment and agency liability arise. If workers’ compensation retaliation is alleged alongside FEHA/Titel VII claims, coordination across forums (state court and WCAB) and causation timelines will be central to expert opinions. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | FinancialContent, ACCESS Newswire, FinancialContent — related WCAB release |
Tesla HR Execs File Wrongful Termination and Retaliation Lawsuit
| Date | 2025-09-01 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Fremont, California (United States) |
| ESG Category | Employee DEI |
| Plaintiffs | Linda Peloquin; Adam Chow; Tiara Paulino; Sharnique Martin; Gregory Vass — former HR personnel; and Ozell Murray — former head of security (Fremont facility). |
| Defendants | Tesla, Inc. — electric vehicle manufacturer |
| Status | Newly filed on August 7, 2025 (N.D. Cal.), Case No. 3:25-cv-06690; assigned in docketing to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin; pending. |
| Overview | Six former Tesla employees — five from Human Resources and the former head of security at the Fremont, California plant — filed a federal lawsuit in early August alleging they were fired or forced out after corroborating workers’ reports of pervasive race discrimination and a toxic workplace. The 159-page complaint describes alleged retaliation against HR staff who validated complaints, management tolerance of racist slurs and symbols, and uneven enforcement of drug/alcohol rules and discipline. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, emotional-distress, and punitive damages, plus fees and costs. The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this case spotlights ESG litigation around workplace culture: whether internal investigations, complaint substantiation, and discipline met professional standards; if DEI commitments matched practices; and how security and safety policies were implemented. Expect needs for experts in HR investigations, organizational culture and bias, retaliation causation analysis, and security operations at large industrial sites. Specialists who can translate compliance frameworks (FEHA, whistleblower protections), evaluate document trails and metrics (turnover, terminations, grievance patterns), and opine on program adequacy will be central to liability and damages phases. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | LawyersandSettlements, CourtListener – Complaint PDF, PacerMonitor – Docket summary |
Sam’s Club to Pay $60K Over Disability Discrimination
| Date | 2025-08-29 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Douglasville, Georgia (United States) |
| ESG Category | Employee DEI |
| Plaintiffs | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — federal agency enforcing employment anti-discrimination laws. |
| Defendants | Sam’s East, Inc.; Walmart Inc. — operators of Sam’s Club warehouse retail stores. |
| Status | Settled via consent decree; $60,000 payment plus injunctive relief (training, notice posting, periodic ADA accommodation denials reporting). Case No. 1:25-cv-00222-SCJ-CMS (N.D. Ga.). |
| Overview | Sam’s East, Inc. and Walmart Inc. will pay $60,000 and adopt injunctive measures to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit arising from a Sam’s Club store in Douglasville, Georgia. A longtime employee returning from medical leave after an auto accident requested temporary, minor job adjustments as a reasonable accommodation. After working one shift with restrictions, she was told she could not work with restrictions and must take additional leave until fully unrestricted. When she sought that leave, the company denied it and terminated her employment. The approved consent decree includes monetary relief, ADA training, notice posting, and periodic reporting obligations at the Douglasville location. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this case underscores how ADA accommodation decisions—and the reasoning behind them—are scrutinized in litigation. The decree highlights several compliance levers: the interactive process for temporary restrictions, evaluating accommodations regardless of whether injuries are work-related, documentation of denials, and store-level training and notices. Experts in HR policy, ADA compliance, occupational medicine, and vocational rehabilitation may be engaged to assess whether proposed restrictions were reasonable, what transitional duties were feasible, and whether the employer’s leave and return-to-work practices met ADA standards. The reporting requirement also signals ongoing oversight where compliance program design and metrics expertise are valuable. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Yahoo News, Southeast ADA Center — News repost |
Nike, former employees ask judge to intervene in stalled sex discrimination case
| Date | 2025-08-21 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Portland, Oregon (United States) |
| ESG Category | Employee DEI |
| Plaintiffs | Kelly Cahill, Sara Johnston, Lindsay Elizabeth, and Heather Hender — current/former Nike employees bringing sex discrimination and equal pay claims on behalf of a putative class. |
| Defendants | Nike, Inc. — global athletic footwear and apparel company. |
| Status | Tentative class settlement (Feb 2025) stalled; parties asked the court to intervene (Aug 21, 2025); OregonLive reported the settlement “fell apart,” and the case could go to trial (Sept 6, 2025). D. Or. No. 3:18-cv-01477-JR. |
| Overview | A long-running sex discrimination case against Nike has hit a wall after the parties told the court they were unable to finalize a tentative class settlement first announced in February 2025. According to recent filings, both sides asked the judge to get involved to break the impasse and decide next steps. The underlying lawsuit—filed in 2018 by several women at Nike headquarters—alleges systemic pay and promotion inequities and a hostile work culture. With the proposed class settlement faltering, the case appears headed back onto a litigation track that could culminate in trial if negotiations do not resume successfully. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, the breakdown of a proposed class settlement resets the case to proof: pay-equity regressions, promotion analyses, and organizational culture evidence will be scrutinized in public filings and, potentially, at trial. Experts in labor economics, IO psychology, HR compliance, and statistics should be prepared for Daubert challenges around model specification (controls, cohort definitions, comparators), and for testimony on classwide practices versus individualized decisions. Given prior fights over sealing and public access, experts should also anticipate disclosure of methods and assumptions. If trial proceeds, damages modeling (back pay/front pay) and injunctive program design analyses will likely be pivotal. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | The Chronicle (https://www.chronline.com/stories/nike-former-employees-ask-judge-to-intervene-in-stalled-sex-discrimination-case, 385763), The Oregonian/OregonLive post, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, Justia |
Governance
US appeals court voids Biden-era electric vehicle fuel economy rule
| Date | 2025-09-05 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | St. Louis, Missouri (8th Cir.) (United States) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | State of Iowa (lead) with 12 other states, and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce — petitioners challenging DOE’s rule. (Reuters) |
| Defendants | U.S. Department of Energy and officials in their official capacities — federal agency that issued the challenged rule. (Reuters) |
| Status | Appellate decision issued by the Eighth Circuit vacating DOE’s EV petroleum-equivalency rule; case caption Iowa et al. v. Wright et al., No. 24-1721. Potential next steps include rehearing or further appeal. (Reuters) |
| Overview | The Eighth Circuit vacated a Department of Energy rule that changed how electric vehicles’ petroleum-equivalent fuel economy is calculated for CAFE compliance. The panel held DOE exceeded its authority by phasing out—rather than eliminating—the “fuel content” factor between model years 2027–2030 and failed to provide adequate notice of alternatives during rulemaking. A 13-state coalition led by Iowa and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce argued the rule overstated EV efficiency, allowing weaker gasoline-vehicle averages while meeting standards. The ruling nullifies the rule, a high-profile win for the challengers and a setback for the administration’s EV-supportive policies. (Reuters) |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this decision spotlights technical underpinnings of transportation policy—how petroleum-equivalency factors shape CAFE outcomes and emissions modeling. Expect demand for experts in vehicle compliance modeling, lifecycle/PEF methods, and administrative procedure (notice-and-comment sufficiency). States, automakers, and NGOs may seek opinions on the real-world emissions and fleet-mix impacts of different PEF assumptions, cost-benefit implications, and grid/road-wear externalities cited by parties. The ruling may also influence parallel challenges to federal and state EV policies, where testimony on regulatory design, statistical modeling, and feasibility could prove decisive in remand proceedings or any rehearing/appeal. (Reuters) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Reuters, Yahoo News |
City slapped with class action water suit
| Date | 2025-09-04 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Odessa, Texas (Ector County) (United States) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | Not specified in article (putative class of Odessa residential water customers). (OAOA) |
| Defendants | City of Odessa (municipal water utility); manufacturer of the city’s water meters (not identified in article). (OAOA) |
| Status | Newly filed putative class action seeking ~$1 million; early stage (court, case number, and counsel not specified in the article). (OAOA) |
| Overview | A proposed $1 million class action breach-of-contract lawsuit has been filed against the City of Odessa over persistent water-billing problems, also naming the manufacturer of the city’s water meters as a defendant. The suit alleges faulty metering and billing practices that produced inaccurate or inflated bills for residential customers. It seeks class certification, damages, and other relief related to the city’s smart-meter rollout and billing system issues. Details such as the named class representative(s), case number, and specific court were not provided in the article. (OAOA) |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, the case centers on AMI/AMR metering accuracy, billing software integration, data validation, and utility contract obligations to ratepayers. Expect disputes over meter performance specs, error rates, data transmission integrity, and whether billing exceptions and audits met standard of care. Experts in customer-class rate impacts and damages modeling may be needed to assess overcharges and restitution. Testimony on governance/controls—procurement, acceptance testing, cybersecurity disruptions, and complaint handling—could be pivotal for certification and liability phases. Background reports indicate months-long billing glitches in Odessa, underscoring potential systemic issues rather than isolated errors. (https://www.firstalert7.com) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Odessa American, KOSA First Alert 7 |
Benson sued over permitting process for aluminum recycling plant
| Date | 2025-09-03 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Benson, Arizona (Cochise County) (United States) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | Health Over Wealth Benson — local community group opposing the aluminum recycling project. |
| Defendants | City of Benson — municipal government that approved the conditional use permit. |
| Status | Newly filed in Cochise County Superior Court; early stage. City declined to comment on pending litigation. |
| Overview | A grassroots group, Health Over Wealth Benson, has filed suit in Cochise County Superior Court to block a proposed 200-acre aluminum recycling plant in Benson. The complaint alleges the city violated Arizona law when approving a conditional use permit for the project. Plaintiffs say any approval to exceed local height limits required action by the Board of Adjustment, which they argue did not occur. They also claim the applicant, Aluminum Dynamics, failed to provide proof of property ownership or landowner authorization before approval. City officials declined comment on pending litigation; state air-quality review by ADEQ remains underway. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, the case centers on procedural adequacy in municipal permitting—Board of Adjustment jurisdiction, variance standards, and completeness of applicant submittals (e.g., ownership/authorization). Land-use planners and zoning administrators can evaluate the record and decision path; administrative-law experts can opine on notice, due process, and remedies (remand vs. vacatur). If the facility’s scale and height are at issue, civil/structural and site-planning experts may address feasibility of alternatives. Because ADEQ’s air review runs in parallel, air-permitting specialists may be asked to explain how local land-use processes interact with state permit decisions and timelines. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | KOLD News 13 |
Federal Lawsuit Cites Elk River Spill In Bid To Force EPA Action
| Date | 2025-09-02 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Charleston, West Virginia (Kanawha Valley) (United States) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform (EJHA) — EJ network; Clean Water Action — national environmental membership group; Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) — environmental nonprofit. |
| Defendants | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Lee Zeldin, in his official capacity as EPA Administrator. |
| Status | Newly filed and pending. Case: Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, et al. v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-07166 (S.D.N.Y.), filed Aug. 28, 2025; plaintiffs seek to vacate EPA’s 2019 refusal and compel a new rulemaking on §311(j)(1)(C). |
| Overview | A coalition led by the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, Clean Water Action and NRDC filed suit to force EPA to issue Clean Water Act §311(j)(1)(C) regulations to prevent and contain hazardous-substance spills from onshore facilities. The complaint, lodged in the Southern District of New York, seeks to vacate EPA’s 2019 “no-action” decision and remand with a deadline, citing the 2014 Elk River MCHM spill in Charleston as evidence of ongoing risks from above-ground tanks. Individual members, including West Virginians, describe continuing fear of contamination. Plaintiffs contend EPA relied on incomplete data and an inadequate patchwork of other programs. (West Virginia Public Broadcasting) |
| Why it matters | If plaintiffs prevail, EPA could be ordered to craft nationwide prevention/containment requirements for facilities storing Clean Water Act hazardous substances—potentially reshaping above-ground storage tank standards, spill controls, and community risk disclosures separate from the 2024 FRP “worst-case discharge” rule under §311(j)(5). Expert witnesses should anticipate demand for testimony on spill-prevention engineering, tank integrity, secondary containment, release detection, hydrologic pathways to intakes, incident frequency analysis, and the adequacy of existing federal/state regimes. Knowledge of APA rulemaking records and how Elk River-type scenarios propagate through water systems will be pivotal. (Federal Register, US EPA) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | West Virginia Public Broadcasting, NRDC – Press Release, Complaint PDF (SDNY, 1:25-cv-07166), Federal Register – 2024 Hazardous Substances FRP Final Rule (§311(j)(5)) |
Tesla faces lawsuit over greenwashing and unfair supply chain practices
| Date | 2025-09-01 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Washington, D.C. (United States) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | International Rights Advocates (public-interest NGO alleging deceptive practices under the CPPA). (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre) |
| Defendants | Tesla, Inc. — electric vehicle manufacturer |
| Status | Newly filed CPPA case (Aug 20, 2025) in Washington, D.C.; pending. Public reporting does not yet list a hearing date or Tesla’s response. (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Lexology) |
| Overview | International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) has sued Tesla under Washington, D.C.’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), alleging the company misled consumers about the ethics and environmental performance of its cobalt supply chain. The complaint cites ties to Glencore and Huayou Cobalt and describes alleged human rights abuses and environmental harms linked to large DRC mining projects (including Tenke Fungurume). The suit frames Tesla’s sustainability messaging as deceptive “green” marketing to D.C. consumers. Filed August 20, 2025, the case seeks relief for deceptive and unfair trade practices under the CPPA. (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, ClubAlfa.it) |
| Why it matters | This CPPA action pushes green-marketing claims into the evidentiary arena: plaintiffs must connect public-facing ESG statements to on-the-ground supply-chain realities. Expert witnesses will be central for cobalt chain-of-custody tracing, supplier due-diligence standards, and environmental/human-rights impact evidence from the DRC. Expect demand for specialists who can assess claim substantiation (advertising/consumer-protection), map cobalt material flows through refiners, evaluate mine-site environmental impacts and community harms, and translate emerging “greenwashing” litigation norms into practical standards of care for automakers. (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Lexology) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | ClubAlfa Global, International Rights Advocates — Press Release (PDF), Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Lexology |
NGT slaps ₹1.7 crore fine on Pune builder for illegal construction
| Date | 2025-08-30 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Pune, Maharashtra (India) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | Vishal Shantaram Darwatkar — Pune resident/applicant before NGT |
| Defendants | M/s Paramount Properties — developer of “Paramount Garden” & “Paramount Eros”; partners Parag Deshpande and Rakesh Solanki (named among respondents). |
| Status | NGT order issued August 28, 2025 in OA No. 69/2024 (WZ): ₹1.7 crore EDC payable within one month; MPCB to use funds for restoration within six months and report compliance. No appeal reported as of September 5, 2025. (Punekar News, The Bridge Chronicle) |
| Overview | India’s National Green Tribunal (Western Zone, Pune) ordered a Pune developer to pay ₹1.7 crore in environmental-damage compensation for unauthorized construction along the Katraj–Kondhwa Road. The bench (Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh; Expert Member Dr. Vijay Kulkarni) held that four residential buildings constructed between 2011–2016 and a 2023 block constitute one integrated project whose combined built-up area exceeds the 20,000 m² threshold requiring prior Environmental Clearance (EC), as well as MPCB consents. Applying the Supreme Court’s Goel Ganga precedent, the NGT set compensation at ~5% of the ₹34 crore project cost and directed deposit with MPCB within one month for restoration works. (The Bridge Chronicle) |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this ruling reinforces three hot-button issues: (1) “project-splitting” risk—tribunals may aggregate phases/blocks to cross EC thresholds; (2) quantification of Environmental Damage Compensation using Goel Ganga’s 5% yardstick; and (3) post-violation remedy design—directing funds to MPCB for defined restoration within six months. Anticipate work on EIA/EC scoping, compliance audits, built-up area calculations, hydrology impacts (alleged stream narrowing, borewell extraction), STP adequacy, and restoration planning/verification under NGT timelines. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | The Bridge Chronicle, Punekar News, Hindustan Times – Pune, NGT – News Updates index for OA No. 69/2024 (WZ), NGT filing (Affidavit excerpts referencing Paramount Properties & Katraj–Kondhwa site), Pune Mirror (case-party background) |
New suit alleges state discriminated against Jackson in distribution of ARPA funds, allowed water system to collapse
| Date | 2025-08-29 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Jackson, Mississippi (United States) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | NAACP Jackson Branch (civil-rights organization); Doris Glasper (resident); Nsombi Lambright (resident). (https://www.wlbt.com) |
| Defendants | Chris Wells — Executive Director, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ); Liz Welch — Executive Director, Mississippi Department of Finance & Administration (DFA); David McRae — Mississippi State Treasurer. (Southern Poverty Law Center) |
| Status | Newly filed and pending. Case: Glasper, et al. v. Wells, et al., No. 3:25-cv-00632-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss.), complaint filed Aug. 21, 2025; plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief regarding ARPA water/sewer funds. (Southern Poverty Law Center) |
| Overview | The Jackson Branch of the NAACP, alongside residents Doris Glasper and Nsombi Lambright, filed a federal lawsuit alleging Mississippi officials intentionally withheld or constrained American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds earmarked for Jackson’s failing water system. Defendants include Chris Wells (MDEQ), Liz Welch (Department of Finance & Administration), and State Treasurer David McRae. The complaint claims Jackson’s award ($35.6M) was uniquely sequestered in a special treasury fund and that later program changes advantaged other applicants, violating Equal Protection and Title VI. JXN Water countered that some ARPA dollars have been received and projects are underway. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. (https://www.wlbt.com, Southern Poverty Law Center) |
| Why it matters | This case blends environmental infrastructure failure with civil-rights and funding-allocation claims—an increasingly common litigation frontier. Expert witnesses may be asked to evaluate ARPA grant program design, disparate impacts of matching requirements, and whether funding controls foreseeably worsened service reliability, disconnections and public-health risks. Utilities finance, rate design, and time-to-fix modeling could be central, as will testimony on how funding timing interacts with water-treatment, distribution upgrades and affordability measures for vulnerable renters and multifamily buildings. Attribution between fiscal decisions and operational outcomes will be scrutinized. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | WLBT, Southern Poverty Law Center – Press release, Complaint PDF (S.D. Miss. No. 3:25-cv-00632), Mississippi Today |
Waste Management
NGT questions Lucknow DM over missing plastic waste penalty
| Date | 2025-09-02 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (India) |
| ESG Category | Waste Management |
| Plaintiffs | National Green Tribunal (suo motu) — proceeding initiated on the Tribunal’s own motion based on a news report. (Hindustan Times) |
| Defendants | Lucknow Municipal Corporation (municipal body); Eco Green (former door-to-door waste contractor; contract terminated for non-performance). (Hindustan Times) |
| Status | Ongoing NGT suo motu original application; DM ordered to file affidavit at least one week before the November 6, 2025 hearing; prior hearing referenced August 6 update on non-recovery from contractor. (Hindustan Times) |
| Overview | India’s National Green Tribunal (Principal Bench) directed the Lucknow District Magistrate to file an affidavit explaining steps taken to recover environmental compensation from the Lucknow Municipal Corporation tied to improper plastic-waste disposal. The matter arises from a suo motu case initiated on an April 22, 2024 report. The bench (Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava; Expert Member A. Senthil Vel) noted prior directions to recover from both the civic body and its former contractor, Eco Green; officials recently said recovery from Eco Green was not executed after it shifted to Gurugram, with no clarity on LMC recovery. The affidavit is due at least a week before the November 6 hearing. (Hindustan Times) |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, the order underscores increasing judicial scrutiny of plastic-waste management and enforceability of environmental compensation (EC). Expect demand for experts who can (i) quantify plastic-waste generation and leakage pathways, (ii) validate EC calculations and recovery mechanisms, and (iii) audit municipal contracts and performance after termination of private waste vendors. Hydrogeochemical and soil-impact expertise may also be relevant where legacy plastic accumulation alters soil properties. Procedural specialists can guide affidavit content, compliance roadmaps, and monitoring frameworks the tribunal will expect before the next hearing. (Hindustan Times) |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Hindustan Times, Hindustan Times — background report, IndiaKanoon — Suo motu OA extracts |
Water and Hydrogeology
Violation of natural justice principles and due process: Punjab and Haryana HC sets aside ₹2 crore penalty on Gurgaon developer BPTP
| Date | 2025-09-05 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Gurgaon (Gurugram), Haryana (India) |
| ESG Category | Water and Hydrogeology |
| Plaintiffs | BPTP Ltd — Gurgaon-based real estate developer (petitioner in civil writ) (The Indian Express) |
| Defendants | Haryana Water Resources Authority (HWRA) — state regulator that issued the penalty (The Indian Express) |
| Status | Interim High Court order on writ petition: HWRA penalty set aside; proceedings remanded for on-site inspection on September 11, 2025, and fresh order preferably within 45 days. (The Indian Express) |
| Overview | The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside a ₹2.12 crore environmental compensation that the Haryana Water Resources Authority (HWRA) imposed on BPTP Ltd for alleged illegal groundwater extraction at its Sector 102, Gurgaon project. A division bench (CJ Sheel Nagu, J. Sanjiv Berry) held the actions tied to an NGT-driven process violated natural justice and due process. The Court ordered HWRA to restart proceedings, conduct a physical inspection on September 11, 2025 (with BPTP’s representative present), then issue a fresh decision—ideally within 45 days. The penalty had followed a joint committee’s 2023 site visit and a 2024 NGT order; BPTP said it wasn’t a party and had sought approvals. (The Indian Express) |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this ruling underscores how environmental compensation tied to groundwater/dewatering must be grounded in procedurally sound fact-finding, notice, and site-specific evidence. Expect renewed emphasis on documenting dewatering durations, hydrogeologic impacts, NOC status, and whether committee mandates and inspections stayed within scope. Experts who can design and defend inspection protocols, evaluate impact assessments, and translate Indian groundwater regulatory frameworks (CGWA/HWRA) into defendable administrative records will be pivotal when HWRA reconsiders the case following the Court-ordered inspection. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | The Indian Express, The Tribune |
PennEnvironment, Three Rivers Waterkeeper settle plastic pollution lawsuit against Styropek USA
| Date | 2025-09-04 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Monaca, Pennsylvania (United States) |
| ESG Category | Water and Hydrogeology |
| Plaintiffs | PennEnvironment, Inc. (environmental nonprofit); Three Rivers Waterkeeper (regional water protection nonprofit). |
| Defendants | BVPV Styrenics LLC (operator of EPS facility); Styropek USA, Inc. (parent company). |
| Status | Proposed consent decree filed (Case No. 2:23-cv-02067-NR); pending court approval; Pennsylvania DEP intervened and joined the settlement. |
| Overview | Two environmental groups announced a proposed consent decree resolving their Clean Water Act suit against BVPV Styrenics LLC and parent Styropek USA over plastic “nurdle” discharges from the Monaca, Pennsylvania EPS plant. The settlement would impose $2.6 million in penalties, direct $2 million to on-site pellet remediation and $500,000 to projects for the Raccoon Creek/Ohio River watershed, and require a full redesign of stormwater controls with continuous monitoring at each outfall. Any pellet detected triggers an automatic penalty. Pennsylvania DEP intervened and joined the settlement. Plaintiffs’ counsel will receive $375,000 for fees and expert costs under fee-shifting. |
| Why it matters | This decree sets a tough operational benchmark—effectively zero pellet loss—with technology-based stormwater controls and real-time outfall monitoring backed by automatic, per-pellet penalties. For expert witnesses, it spotlights emerging standards of care for microplastic containment, verification monitoring, and post-release remediation in industrial settings. It also illustrates how citizen-suit remedies can compel engineering retrofits, third-party fund administration for watershed projects, and substantial fee recovery (including expert costs). Expect increased demand for experts who can design, assess, and audit stormwater and wastewater systems for microplastics and defend or challenge compliance under NPDES permits. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | PennEnvironment, Proposed Consent Decree PDF – NELC, Complaint PDF – NELC |
A judge dismissed the James M. Gavin power plant’s lawsuit challenging EPA rules on toxic waste disposal
| Date | 2025-09-04 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Cheshire, Ohio (Gallia County) (United States) |
| ESG Category | Water and Hydrogeology |
| Plaintiffs | Gavin Power, LLC — owner/operator of the 2,600-MW James M. Gavin coal-fired power plant (subsidiary of Lightstone Generation). |
| Defendants | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Michael S. Regan (in official capacity as EPA Administrator). |
| Status | Dismissed by U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 2:24-cv-00041) on August 26, 2025; appeal not yet announced. |
| Overview | A federal judge dismissed Gavin Power, LLC’s lawsuit challenging EPA’s application of its coal combustion residuals (CCR) rules to the James M. Gavin Power Plant in Cheshire, Ohio. The case centered on a 314-acre coal ash reservoir that was closed in place; EPA found the unit remained in contact with groundwater and denied Gavin’s request for a closure-deadline extension for another unlined unit. Judge Michael H. Watson held that EPA correctly applied the 2015 CCR rule and that “liquids” includes groundwater, rejecting claims of retroactive rulemaking and lack of fair notice. The dismissal was issued on August 26, 2025, in the Southern District of Ohio. |
| Why it matters | For environmental expert witnesses, the ruling affirms that groundwater interaction is integral to CCR compliance and that “waste-in-place” closures must minimize groundwater infiltration. Expect increased scrutiny of hydrogeologic data, liner performance, porewater/groundwater distinctions, and monitoring networks at legacy ash units. The opinion signals courts may view EPA’s CCR interpretations as straightforward applications of existing rules, shaping how experts frame causation, exposure pathways, corrective-measure design, and feasibility of compliant closure alternatives. It also underscores the evidentiary value of site-specific saturation estimates and the defensibility of EPA denial decisions grounded in hydrogeology. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | WOUB Public Media, Justia – Docket 2:24-cv-00041, Midpage – Case summary, Inside EPA – coverage |