Home Care In Elkton, MD

A federal trial court has approved an Elkton couple’s request to intervene in a lawsuit alleging that W.L. Gore & Associates has been illegally releasing toxic chemicals into Maryland’s ecosystem for the past 50 years.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted Cheryl and Stephen Martin’s motion to intervene and declined to impose limitations on the Martins’ intervention in the environmental enforcement case filed by state officials.

The decision allows the Martins to participate in the discovery process and present arguments alongside the state, according to Philip Federico, the Martins’ attorney and a partner with Brockstedt Mandalas Federico LLC.

Request for intervention

The State of Maryland filed the lawsuit against Gore, a Newark, Delaware-based materials science company best known for developing Gore-Tex fabric, on Dec. 18, 2024. Gore has 13 production facilities in the Elkton area. The lawsuit alleges common law, state and federal law violations.

But before state officials filed their lawsuit in late 2024, the Martins had already taken Gore to court with similar allegations, filing a lawsuit against Gore on Dec. 9, 2024, a few days before the state’s lawsuit. The Martins’ lawsuit was dismissed because of a notice failure by the Martins. The Martins then asked if they could take part in the state’s lawsuit.

The Martins said in their July 2025 motion to intervene that they have a “significant protectable interest” in the case because they live in Elkton and near several Gore facilities. The couple also allege their drinking water supply well has more than four times the maximum contaminant level of PFOA. They claim this stems from Gore’s release of PFAS from its Elkton production facilities. They asked for permission to intervene in Counts V and IX of the 10-count amended complaint.

Count V alleged unauthorized discharge of pollutants and waste at all 13 of Gore’s Elkton facilities under state environmental law.

Count IX alleged imminent and substantial endangerment and open dumping under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). RCRA governs solid and hazardous waste disposal.

In line with many environmental laws, RCRA bans citizen lawsuits when a regulatory body takes enforcement action. However, it allows citizens to intervene in an enforcement action.

Unopposed request for intervention

For the most part, the Martins’ request to participate in the state action was unopposed. Maryland did not take a position on the motion. Gore conceded that the Martins met the standard for intervention as of right in Counts V and IX but asked the court to limit the Martins’ participation in those counts to Gore’s Cherry Hill facility. Gore also asked the court to impose discovery and briefing limitations.

In addition, Gore and the Martins agreed that Maryland’s legal filing triggered RCRA’s bar on citizen suits. They also agreed that the bar prevented the Martins from refiling their action against Gore after its dismissal.

Court ruling

Judge Richard D. Bennett wrote the Oct. 29 opinion for the federal trial court. In an unpublished decision, the court granted the Martins’ motion to intervene as to Counts V and IX. The court also ruled that it will not impose limitations on the Martins’ intervention in those counts and or impose discovery or briefing limitations.

The Martins claimed a “significantly protectable interest” in all thirteen of Gore’s Elkton, facilities and sought full participation in Counts V and IX.

The couple said they’ve been affected by all of Gore’s facilities. They allege that they “live and work in a community that is impacted by traveling airborne emissions that deposit onto the land and subsequently leach into the groundwater.” They further alleged that their drinking water supply well has more than four times the maximum contaminant level of PFOA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 governs intervention. It provides that the court must allow anyone to intervene who “claims an interest” in the case, “and is so situated” that not being able to participate might “impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”

The court said that under this standard, the Martins had sufficiently demonstrated that they have a significantly protectable interest in all thirteen properties.

In Donaldson v. United States, the Supreme Court explained that the word “interest” means “a significantly protectable interest.” The Fourth Circuit further explained Donaldson in Teague v. Bakker, by saying that a putative intervenor has a significantly protectable interest when he or she stands to gain or lose by direct legal operation of the district court’s judgment. Under Donaldson and Teague, a court must allow an intervenor to participate in those claims for which they have a “significantly protectable interest.”

Judge Bennett said the Martins met the Teague standard for a significantly protectable interest. “They stand to gain or lose by this Court’s judgment on the merits of Maryland’s Counts V and IX,” he observed.

No limitation on participation

Of course, intervention as of right does not confer an “unlimited right to participate in every aspect of the litigation,” the court noted, adding that courts may place restrictions on the participation of an intervenor as of right.

Gore asked the court to limit the Martins’ participation to the Cherry Hill facility. Gore’s argument for limiting the Martins’ participation was that the Martins previously brought a citizen suit against Gore in which they only mentioned the Cherry Hill facility.

In essence, Judge Bennett wrote, Gore claims that when an intervenor as of right has previously filed a citizen suit about the same conduct, the scope of that citizen suit sets the limits for later participation as an intervenor.

Federal courts give the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure their plain meaning, the court explained. There is no basis in the text of Rule 24(a)(2) for this argument, the judge said, noting that Gore had not provided any cases on point, nor had the court found any. Giving the rule its plain and unambiguous meaning, there are no limits for intervention relating to previous citizen suits, the court said.

Thus, the court ruled that the Martins’ may participate in Count V as to all thirteen of Gore’s facilities, and in Count IX as to the Cherry Hill, Fair Hill, and four Appleton facilities. The court said it will not limit the Martins’ participation to Cherry Hill for either count.

No limitation on discovery or briefing

Gore also asked the court to limit the Martins’ ability to seek discovery and impose procedures to limit duplicative briefing. Relying on a 2015 environmental case from the Southern District of West Virginia, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition Inc. v. McCarthy, Gore said limiting discovery and briefing would “minimize the risk of delay, duplication, and inefficiency.”

The court rejected the argument. “As is evident from the Court’s explanation of Ohio Valley, however, that case is inapposite and lends no support to Gore’s argument to limit the Martins’ briefing and discovery,” the court said. As plaintiff-intervenors, the Martins may not only benefit the adjudication of the case with their briefing and discovery, they are entitled to both as intervenors as of right, the court said.

Gore also argued that limitations would be appropriate to ensure efficiency, because additional parties always take additional time. “That supposition is undercut by this Circuit’s preference for liberal intervention to dispose of as much of a case as possible at once,” the judge wrote. The court also noted that with the deadline for fact discovery several months away, “the earliness of the proceedings in this case justifies the Martins’ participation without limitations.”

Statement from Gore

Gore provided a statement via email. A Gore spokesperson wrote, “We did not oppose the Martin’s intervention in the State of Maryland’s suit. Rather, Gore responded to the Martin’s intervention by proposing measures to the Court that Gore believed would help ensure this case moves forward as expeditiously as possible. In light of the Court’s order, Gore will be working with both the State and the Martins to continue to efficiently litigate this case.”

“As we have maintained from the outset, we dispute the allegations which ignore Gore’s decades-long history of environmental stewardship and cooperation with the State of Maryland.”

Other lawsuits

The Maryland lawsuit is one of several that Gore is facing over claims from current and former Elkton residents who say decades of chemical exposure caused cancer and other illnesses.

ELKTON, Md. — A contaminated site in Elkton that was once considered unusable is now generating clean energy for Maryland families through an innovative solar project.

Fifteen hundred solar panels now cover a remote piece of land along the Little Elk Creek, transforming what was once one of the most contaminated sites in Maryland into a source of renewable energy.

From 1962 to 1988, a solvent recycling facility operated at this location. In 1989, the owner abandoned the property, leaving more than half a million gallons of hazardous waste in over 1,100 drums and tanks, according to Dave Fennimore, project coordinator.

Solar farm transforms former Superfund site in Elkton

Some of those containers leaked into the nearby Little Elk Creek. The Environmental Protection Agency eventually declared it a Superfund site and ordered its cleanup.

While the site remains unsafe for residential development or children's activities, existing power lines provided CleanCapital with a unique opportunity to repurpose the land.

"We can re-use those wires and the land itself. Solar energy is just perfect sitting on top. We don't even penetrate the ground. We have what's called a ballasted foundation, which means our solar panels sit on concrete blocks and it can operate here forever," Paul Curran, CleanCapital chief development officer, said.

To maximize energy production in the limited space, crews painted the ground white. This allows the panels to capture energy not only from direct sunlight hitting the tops but also from light reflecting off the white surface below.

The solar installation will produce just under a megawatt of electricity per year, helping 100 low-to-moderate income families save on their energy bills.

Curran noted the broader potential for similar projects across the country.

"Unfortunately, there's brownfields in every corner of every state. The EPA has a list of about 450,000 brownfield sites around the country. We can't do all of them, but a site like this is certainly worth celebrating and something certainly worth replicating as well," Curran said.

This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.