Allegations that toxic chemicals released into the environment have caused significant health problems for two residents are at the center of a new civil action seeking damages from several major chemical manufacturers. The complaint was filed by Nikole Johnson and Brandon Johnson in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 4, 2026, naming E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont), DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC, DuPont de Nemours, Inc., Corteva, Inc., The Chemours Company, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, The 3M Company, and unidentified John Doe entities as defendants.
According to the filing, Nikole Johnson and Brandon Johnson allege that they suffered personal injuries due to wrongful exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) released by the defendants’ operations. The plaintiffs claim these exposures resulted in a range of health issues including infertility with multiple miscarriages, basal cell carcinoma, irritable bowel syndrome, anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, emotional distress, disability, ulcerative colitis, enteropathic arthritis, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), high cholesterol, depression, and loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures.
The complaint outlines that PFAS—sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment—were manufactured or used by the defendants at facilities such as Chambers Works in Pennsville and Carneys Point Township. Plaintiffs assert that both legacy PFAS compounds like PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid), as well as replacement compounds such as GenX were discharged into air, water, and soil over decades. They cite findings from state agencies including the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) documenting elevated levels of PFOS in groundwater wells serving local communities between 2014 and 2017.
The lawsuit claims that defendants knew or should have known about the hazardous nature of PFAS but continued their use and release despite mounting evidence of harm. The complaint references internal documents from defendant 3M dating back to 1960 acknowledging that their chemicals would “eventually reach the water table and pollute domestic wells.” It further alleges efforts by some defendants to suppress scientific research on PFAS hazards: “3M actively sought to suppress scientific research on the hazards associated with PFAS products.”
Regulatory actions are also detailed in the filing. The NJDEP is cited as having recognized adverse health effects from PFAS exposure—including reproductive harm and various cancers—and has set strict limits for these substances in drinking water. According to plaintiffs’ attorneys: “NJDEP declared that: ‘DuPont has not been working in good faith to address the contamination it released into New Jersey’s environment… DuPont knowingly concealed the true nature of the chemicals it discharged.’”
Plaintiffs argue that even small amounts of exposure can cause or aggravate injury due to bioaccumulation properties of PFAS. They claim routes of exposure included ingestion through drinking water sourced from contaminated wells near affected facilities.
The legal claims brought against all named defendants include negligence; gross negligence; absolute liability for abnormally dangerous activities; strict liability for failure to warn; private nuisance; public nuisance; trespass; and strict liability for defective design. Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants’ acts and omissions…proximately caused injury,” leading them to seek compensatory damages for bodily injury and economic loss as well as punitive damages intended “to punish Defendants and deter them from similar conduct in the future.”
Relief requested includes judgment against all defendants for compensatory damages covering medical expenses and other losses related to alleged injuries; non-compensatory damages such as emotional distress; punitive damages; interest; costs; attorneys’ fees; and any additional relief deemed proper by the court.
Attorneys representing Nikole Johnson and Brandon Johnson are Steven Phillips (Phillips & Paolicelli LLP), Peter A. Kraus (Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel), Kevin Cooney (Cooney & Conway), Marc C. Gorrie (Phillips & Paolicelli LLP), Victoria Phillips (Phillips & Paolicelli LLP), Russell J. Curley (Phillips & Paolicelli LLP), Michael Lubeck (Cooney & Conway). The case is identified as Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-02260.
Source: 126cv02260_Johnson_v_Du_Pont_De_Nemours_and_Company_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
