JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Delays could be in store for a proposed $7.25 billion settlement covering thousands of claims that the maker of Roundup weedkiller failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.
An attorney opposed to the settlement filed paperwork Friday to move the case to federal court instead of a Missouri court, where people face a June 4 deadline to opt out of the settlement. The dispute about who should preside over the proposed settlement could disrupt its deadlines and delay a resolution about whether it should be approved.
The legal wrangling over the settlement is playing out as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs a case that could block thousands of lawsuits filed in state courts against agrochemical-maker Bayer, which added Roundup to its portfolio when it acquired Missouri-based Monsanto in 2018. Bayer contends the state-level claims that it failed to warn of cancer risks should be forbidden because it followed federal labeling standards that don’t require a warning.
Germany-based Bayer also disputes the assertion that Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. But plaintiffs point to a 2015 decision by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic.”
The case before the Supreme Court was filed on behalf John Durnell, who says he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after more than 20 years of spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis. Durnell is not covered by the proposed class-action settlement. But his attorney, Ashley Keller, filed objections opting out of the settlement on behalf of several other clients before also filing a document to shift the settlement case to federal court.
“This is a huge settlement that is extinguishing the rights of tens of thousands of cancer victims,” Keller said Friday. “It was rushed in to state court.”
The move to federal court is sure to face opposition.
Attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed as a claimants’ representative in the settlement, denounced the court shift as “a baseless delay tactic that should be promptly denied.”
A statement from Bayer said the move “has no merit,” and it would work to keep the proceedings in state court.
The proposed nationwide settlement was filed in February in St. Louis Circuit Court in Missouri. It’s designed to address most pending Roundup lawsuits, as well as any additional cases brought in the coming years by people who were exposed to Roundup. But if too many claimants opt out, Bayer reserves the right to cancel it.
A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for July 9 in state court. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, is expected to issue a decision in Durnell’s case by the end of June.
The proposed settlement calls for Bayer to make annual payments into a special fund for up to 21 years, totaling as much as $7.25 billion. The amount of money paid out to individuals would vary depending on how they used Roundup, how old they were when diagnosed and the severity of their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
An agricultural, industrial or turf worker exposed at length to Roundup would receive an average of $165,000 if they were diagnosed with an aggressive form of the illness while younger than age 60, according to the proposed settlement. But those diagnosed at age 78 or older would get an average of $10,000.
