A proposed settlement intended to resolve thousands of Roundup cancer lawsuits in Missouri state court is now at risk of delay after an attorney filed paperwork seeking to move the case to federal court, setting off a fight over which court should oversee the deal.
The proposed settlement would cover thousands of claims alleging Bayer failed to warn that Roundup weedkiller could cause cancer, according to the agreement filed in February in St. Louis Circuit Court. The agreement is designed to address most pending Roundup lawsuits and also provide for additional cases brought later by people who say they were exposed to Roundup.
An attorney opposed to the settlement filed paperwork Friday seeking to move the case to federal court instead of continuing in Missouri, where people face a June 4 deadline to opt out. The dispute over who should preside over the settlement, the lawsuit materials and reporting described, could disrupt those deadlines and delay a decision on whether the settlement should be approved.
The legal battle is unfolding as the U.S. Supreme Court considers a separate case that could block thousands of Roundup lawsuits filed in state courts. Bayer has argued in that broader fight that state-level claims that it failed to warn about cancer risks should be barred because it followed federal labeling standards that, it says, do not require a warning. Bayer has also disputed the assertion that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Federal regulators have determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed, the reporting said. Plaintiffs have pointed to a 2015 decision by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic.”
The Supreme Court case referenced in the reporting was filed on behalf of 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 is among those pressing objections that would shift claims away from the proposed deal.
“This is a huge settlement that is extinguishing the rights of tens of thousands of cancer victims,” attorney Ashley Keller said Friday. “It was rushed in to state court.”
Keller’s effort to opt out and move the dispute to federal court is expected 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.” Bayer said in a statement that the move “has no merit” and that it would work to keep the proceedings in state court.
Under the terms described, the nationwide 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 paid to individuals would vary based on how they used Roundup, their age when diagnosed, and the severity of their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
For example, an agricultural, industrial or turf worker exposed at length to Roundup would receive an average of $165,000 if diagnosed with an aggressive form of the illness while younger than age 60, while those diagnosed at age 78 or older would receive an average of $10,000, according to the settlement terms described in the reporting.
A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for July 9 in state court, while the Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in Durnell’s case by the end of June.