HELENA, Mont. – BNSF Railway attorneys are expected to argue before jurors Friday that the railroad should not be held liable for the lung cancer deaths of two former residents of an asbestos-contaminated Montana town, one of the deadliest sites in the federal Superfund pollution program.

Attorneys for the Warren Buffett-owned company say the railroad’s corporate predecessors didn’t know the vermiculite it hauled over decades from a nearby mine was filled with hazardous microscopic asbestos fibers.

The case in federal civil court over the two deaths is the first of numerous lawsuits against the Texas-based railroad corporation to reach trial over its past operations in Libby, Montana. Current and former residents of the small town near the U.S.-Canada border want BNSF held accountable for its alleged role in asbestos exposure that health officials say has killed several hundred people and sickened thousands.

Looming over the proceedings is W.R. Grace & Co., a chemical company that operated a mountaintop vermiculite mine 7 miles (11 kilometers) outside of Libby until it was closed 1990. The Maryland-based company played a central role in Libby’s tragedy and has paid significant settlements to victims.

U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris has referred to the mining company as “the elephant in the room” in the BNSF trial. He reminded jurors several times that the case was about the railroad’s conduct, not W.R. Grace’s separate liability.

Federal prosecutors in 2005 indicted W. R. Grace and executives from the company on criminal charges over the contamination in Libby. A jury acquitted them following a 2009 trial.

How much W.R. Grace revealed about the asbestos dangers to Texas-based BNSF and its corporate predecessors has been sharply disputed.

The railroad said it was obliged under law to ship the vermiculite, which was used in insulation and for other commercial purposes, and that W.R. Grace employees had concealed the health hazards from the railroad.

Former railroad workers said during testimony and in depositions that they knew nothing about the risks of asbestos. They said Grace employees were responsible for loading the hopper cars, plugging the holes of any cars leaking vermiculite and occasionally cleaned up material that spilled in the rail yard.

Former rail yard worker John Swing said in previously recorded testimony that he didn’t know asbestos was an issue in Libby until a 1999 newspaper story reporting deaths and illnesses among mine workers and their families.

Swing also said he didn’t think the rail yard was dusty. His testimony was at odds with people who grew up in Libby and recall dust getting kicked up whenever the wind blew or a train rolled through the yard.

The estates of the two deceased plaintiffs have argued that the W.R. Grace’s actions don’t absolve BNSF of its responsibility for knowingly exposing people to asbestos at its railyard in the heart of the community.

Their attorneys said BNSF should have known about the dangers because Grace put signs on rail cars carrying vermiculite warning of potential health risks. They showed jurors an image of a warning label allegedly attached to rail cars in the late 1970s that advised against inhaling the asbestos dust because it could cause bodily harm.

BNSF higher-ups also should have been aware of the dangers because they attended conferences that discussed dust diseases like asbestosis in the 1930s, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued.

The Environmental Protection Agency descended on Libby after the 1999 news reports. In 2009 it declared in Libby the nation’s first ever public health emergency under the federal Superfund cleanup program.

The pollution in Libby has been cleaned up, largely at public expense. Yet the long timeframe over which asbestos-related diseases can develop means people previously exposed are likely to continue getting sick and dying for years to come, health officials say.

Family members of Tom Wells and Joyce Walder testified that their lives ended soon after they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. The families said the dust blowing from the rail yard sickened and killed them.

In a March 2020 video of Wells played for jurors and recorded the day before he died, he lay in a home hospital bed, struggling to breathe.

“I’ve been placed in a horrible spot here, and the best chance I see at release — relief for everybody — is to just get it over with,” he said. “It’s just not something I want to try and play hero through because I don’t think that there’s a miracle waiting.”

___

Brown reported from Billings, Mont.

April 18 (UPI) — Two transgender women on Thursday sued the state of Montana and several state agencies over a 2022 policy that prohibits people from changing the sex designation on their birth certificates.

The lawsuit challenges SB 280, which only allows for changes in sex designation on birth certificates after the person’s sex “has been changed by surgical procedure.”

The plaintiffs also challenged the Montana Motor Vehicle Division’s policy, which no longer allows applicants to change the sex designation on the driver’s license, which transgender people have previously been able to do with a letter from a doctor.

According to the lawsuit, all of these measures are “invalid, illegal and unconstitutional.”

“After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, is forcing me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male,” said Jessica Kalarchik, a transgender veteran and one of the plaintiffs in the case.

“I am being forced to use a birth certificate that is inaccurate and that places me at risk of discrimination and harassment whenever I have to present it.”

The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP, also seek a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of these policies.

“Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana.

“The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where Courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.”

Montana’s Department of Public Health and Human Services in February said it would only process applications for amending the sex designation on birth certificates in cases where the person’s sex was misidentified at birth or if incorrect sex designations were the result of a scrivener’s error.

The agency said it would not amend a birth certificate based on “gender transition, gender identity, or change of gender,” subject to the provisions of SB 458, which defines sex as being “determined by the biological and genetic indication of male and female.”

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, signed SB 458 last May. The governor’s office at the time said transgender people can “identify with whatever gender, but not sex, they wish.”

SB 280 also faced a legal challenge shortly after its adoption in 2021. During the case, District Court Judge Michael Moses of Billings issued a preliminary injunction and ordered the state not to enforce the law.

(Missoula Current) Two transgender women on Thursday filed a class-action lawsuit against the state of Montana challenging a policy that bars them and other individuals from changing the gender designation on their birth certificate.

The lawsuit, filed in Lewis and Clark County District Court, is also challenging a policy that doesn’t allow transgender Montanans to update the sex listed on their driver’s licenses.

In 2021, Montana enacted SB 280, which only allows for changes in sex designation on birth certificates upon “receipt of a court order indicating that the sex of a person has been changed by surgical procedure.”

According to the plaintiffs, one identified as Jane Doe and the other as Jessica Kalarchik, the state has ignored a previous court order that blocked the state from enforcing SB 280.

Rather, they said, the Montana Department of Public health and Human Services issued an emergency rule banning changes to sex designations on birth certificates. The rule has since become permanent, they said.

“After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, is forcing me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male,” said Kalarchik.

She added, “I am being forced to use a birth certificate that is inaccurate and that places me at risk of discrimination and harassment whenever I have to present it. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male.”

Kalarchik served in the U.S. Army for 31 years. She and other members of the suit are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Together, they’re seeking a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the state’s regulations, policies and practices.

“Once again the state of Montana has chosen to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where Courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.”