The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which owns and manages the Kingston Fossil Plant, hired Jacobs Engineering as a project manager to handle the coal ash spill and cleanup process [10]. Jacobs Engineering provides a “full spectrum of professional services” to the government and private sector, earning $15 billion annually [29]. The day after the spill occurred, December 23rd, Jacobs Engineering sent sub-contracted workers to the scene to begin cleaning sludge from the site [2][11]. Shortly after work began, many workers noticed the appearance of burning sores on their skin [7]. Several workers asked that Jacobs Engineering provide them with protective gear, but were refused items as basic as dust masks by the sub-contractor [7]. Workers were told that conditions at the impacted sites were safe for breathing and eating [23]. In the following years (2009 and 2010), workers began to develop various illnesses, which they believed to be linked to the coal ash [2]. 

On January 7th, 2009, homeowner Larry Mays filed the first of approximately 800 lawsuits in federal district court by plaintiffs who lived, owned property, and/or owned a business in the vicinity of the plant and suffered personal injuries and/or property damages as a result of the spill [16]. Plaintiffs claimed that the dike failure and resulting spill were caused by TVA’s negligent conduct with respect to the “design, construction, implementation, operation, maintenance and inspection of coal ash storage and disposal facilities” [16]. In 2010, the federal district court found that TVA could be held liable under federal law, subject to the “discretionary judgment doctrine” [16]. This doctrine meant that TVA could only be liable for decisions or conduct that were not grounded in public policy or in the exercise of policy judgment [16]. The court dismissed claims for punitive damages and rejected plaintiffs’ request for a jury trial [16].

 In 2011, the district court, at TVA’s urging, decided that plaintiffs must identify a specific decision or conduct; show it to be a non-discretionary act for which TVA may be liable; and explain how the decision or conduct caused the dike failure in order to have their individual claims considered [17]. The court ruled that TVA could not be held liable for a broad range of decisions and conduct regarding the construction and operation of the plant under the “discretionary judgment doctrine” [17]. It also held that TVA could be found liable only if plaintiffs could demonstrate that TVA’s conduct with regard the training and performance of mandatory (non-discretionary) policies and procedures, including construction and maintenance, was negligent [17]. The court also denied plaintiffs’ requests to certify a class so that cases could be consolidated and proceed as class action lawsuits, meaning several related cases had to proceed at the same time within the same court and individuals had to litigate cases separately [17]. 

In 2012, the district court granted summary judgment to TVA, meaning as a matter of law TVA could not be held liable for the plaintiffs’ personal injuries, emotional distress, and inverse condemnation; those claims were dismissed [18]. However, the court allowed plaintiffs’ property-based claims to move forward to trial [18]. The judge then divided all of the TVA property litigation cases into two phases [18]. Phase one was focused on determining TVA’s liability and was binding on all 800 plaintiffs [18]. If there was a determination of liability by TVA in phase one, all of the cases would then proceed individually to consider evidence on property-specific causation and damages (phase two) [18]. 

Over the course of phase one litigation, the judge ultimately dismissed all claims other than the negligence, trespassing, and private nuisance claims [18]. Following a bench trial, the court found that TVA’s conduct was the cause of the dike failure and that if TVA had followed its own mandatory (non-discretionary) policies, procedures and practices, a catastrophic failure could have been avoided [18]. Accordingly, the district court judge determined that TVA’s conduct was negligent and lacked due care, and was not an immune (discretionary) policy decision [18]. The court found that all elements of TVA liability had been proven by the plaintiffs with respect to these claims, and he directed that the approximately 800 cases go to mediation [18][26]. Mediation proceedings are not public, however, in 2018 the district court judge approved a lump sum settlement of $27.8 million that apparently came out of the mediation effort [19][20]. The few plaintiffs that did not participate in the mediation settlement and pursued phase two of their individual cases saw their claims dismissed via summary judgment [20][27]. 

Separate from the property-related lawsuits, in 2013 approximately 240 workers and 100 of their spouses sued Jacobs Engineering, alleging physical injuries caused by contaminants in coal ash and inadequate protection by Jacobs Engineering of the workers [21]. The cases are being overseen by the same district court judge who heard the property-related cases. The judge  took a similar approach to cleanup workers’ lawsuits, splitting them into phase one to determine liability and phase two to determine causation and damages [21].

In 2009, workers began to report dangerous conditions at the cleanup site to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”), the federal agency charged with overseeing workplace safety [22]. Rather than investigate, OSHA passed along the complaints to TVA [22]. TVA’s project safety manager prepared and submitted a report to OSHA two months later detailing a full scale investigation and reporting that proper safety precautions were being taken and protective gear worn by cleanup workers[22]. TVA subsequently acknowledged that much of what was described in the report was false [22]. OSHA denied having received any complaints and, in 2014, shredded its files on the Kingston coal ash spill cleanup, even though a “no shred order” had been in place from the Environmental Protection Agency since 2009 [22]. 

In mid-2017, an investigation looking into the treatment of cleanup workers was launched by USA Today Network Tennessee (USATNT) [2]. A few months later, USATNT released another series which explored the treatment of Kingston Fossil Plant cleanup workers [2]. The series highlighted the health hazards that workers were exposed to, which had fatally harmed over two dozen, in addition to the general mistreatment they endured during the cleanup process [2]. All accusations made in the series were rejected by both TVA and Jacobs Engineering [2]. 

In 2018, a federal jury found that Jacobs Engineering was liable for breaching its cleanup contract with the TVA and for failing to protect cleanup workers, meaning that Jacobs Engineering could be held liable for the cleanup workers’ illnesses [21]. In December, 2018, it was reported that TVA was still contracting with Jacobs Engineering for work totaling up to $200 million [2]. Jacobs Engineering appealed the district court’s finding of liability to a federal circuit court, further delaying the resolution of workers’ claims. It also asserted various arguments in favor of immunity from the workers’ claims, all of which were unsuccessful, and which it also appealed [32]. All such appeals and motions have been resolved against Jacobs and in favor of the plaintiff cleanup workers. [22] In an attempt to reach a resolution that provided medical treatment and testing funds to workers affected by the Kingston coal ash spill, the presiding district court judge ordered Jacobs in January 2019 to mediate with cleanup workers [2]. No progress has been reported from that mediation. 

By September, 2021, the phase two trials had not begun and Jacobs Engineering asserted that Tennessee Silica Claim Priorities Act applied to the workers’ claims, barring many of them from being heard [30].  The district court judge asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to resolve these issues further delaying resolution of workers’ claims [21]. The Tennessee Supreme Court heard arguments on the issues in June, 2022 and has yet to rule [31]. The determination of causation and damages with respect to the approximately 240 workers can only proceed once the Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled – even though 54 of the original 240 workers had already succumbed to their illnesses and were dead at the time that the 2022 circuit court decision was handed down [22]. Jacobs continues to deny responsibility and, in its November 2022 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, stated that it does not expect the results of the litigation to have a material adverse effect on its “business, financial condition, operations or cash flows [25].”